tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70413249569330107712024-03-13T01:05:13.369-04:00Sav Lasav"Do this, do that..." Isaiah 28:10Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-69485336998135034752011-05-10T11:11:00.000-04:002011-05-10T11:11:33.217-04:00Which Denomination Am I?Growing up, I always described myself as a bit of a theological/denominational "mutt." I was raised in Charismatic and Assemblies of God churches when I was young, attended a Baptist church throughout middle and high school, was part of a non-denominational Charismatic church plant in late high school, bounced around way too much in college (charismatic Baptist, Vineyard, Presbyterian, non-denominational, Baptist mega-church, to name a few of the places I landed!), attended a Methodist church while working on my master's, and now am part of a Sovereign Grace church (essentially, Reformed Charismatic). So I was interested to take<a href="http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=denomtradition"> this quiz</a> to determine my denominational leanings. The results:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: -webkit-center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica; font-size: xx-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; font-size: xx-small;"><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="100" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(100%) 1: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic) <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="83" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(83%) 2: Presbyterian/Reformed <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="82" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(82%) 3: Congregational/United Church of Christ <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="60" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(60%) 4: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="60" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(60%) 5: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth </td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="54" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(54%) 6: Eastern Orthodox <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="51" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(51%) 7: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="51" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(51%) 8: Lutheran <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="51" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(51%) 9: Seventh-Day Adventist <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="50" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(50%) 10: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="47" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(47%) 11: Church of Christ/Campbellite <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="36" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(36%) 12: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.) <span style="color: #ffffaa; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top" width="20%"><img align="center" border="0" height="10" hspace="0" src="http://selectsmart.com/plus/fade.jpg" vspace="0" width="31" /></td><td valign="top" width="80%">(31%) 13: Roman Catholic<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</td><td align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFAA" valign="top"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></span></span></span>While I wasn't surprised to be in the neighborhood of "Reformed Baptist," I was surprised to be pegged at 100%! I was also surprised to see "Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God" so far down the list, as these are my roots, and still a significant influence in my life.<br />
<br />
What about you? Where do you land? Take <a href="http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=denomtradition">the quiz</a> and let me know!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-57870705634365926922011-01-03T14:48:00.000-05:002011-01-03T14:48:16.263-05:00Why I am Not a Christian HedonistIn this post, I explore some of the conclusions I've come to regarding John Piper's philosophy of Christian Hedonism. But before doing so, I want to head off any misinterpretation by stating my profound respect for Piper. In so many ways he is an excellent example of a pastor-scholar, and I have personally benefited greatly from his teaching and writing.<br />
<br />
That said, I struggle at times with his writings on Christian Hedonism (and not because of the common "we're-called-to-deny-not-gratify" objection, which I don't think is a valid critique of his position). In short, Christian Hedonism is the philosophy that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." It is rooted in the notion that we are not only allowed, but in fact called, to <i>enjoy</i> God, and that doing so in no way detracts from His glory or makes Him a means to an end. So far so good.<br />
<br />
In this regard, Piper's works like "Desiring God" [1] and "When I Don't Desire God" [2] are very helpful for spurring the believer on to greater joy in God and to a passion for his glory. Christian Hedonism is <b>wonderful news</b> when seen as a promise ("Yes - you CAN find ultimate joy in God rather than sin, and his glory and your joy are not at odds"). However, when pushed beyond a simple promise of joy in God, I've found that Christian Hedonism strikes me as very <b>bad news</b> - as threat, rather than promise.<br />
<br />
Whether Piper intends it or not (and I am confident he does not intend it), it can be a subtle move from "You can (and ought to) enjoy God" to "You'd better start enjoying God - or else!". This can shift our focus from "all that God is for us in Christ" (the true source of our joy in Him), to what I do for God (i.e., enjoying Him sufficiently as a condition of my salvation). None other than C. S. Lewis, one of the inspirations for Piper's Christian Hedonism, noted that "the surest way of spoiling a pleasure [is] to start examining your satisfaction" (p. 218, <i>Surprised By Joy </i>) [3].<br />
<br />
I think the challenges of consistent Christian Hedonism in the Christian life come to forefront in Piper's book "Future Grace" [4]. In particular, in Ch. 15, his discussion of the nature of saving faith seems to me (despite all Piper's protestations to the contrary) to confuse the fruits of faith with the nature of faith. He states:<br />
<br />
"I don't want to say merely that faith in promises produces 'confidence, joy and hope,' but that an <i>essential element</i> in the faith itself <i>is</i> confidence and joy and hope[...] The essence of saving faith is a spiritual apprehension or tasting of spiritual beauty, which <i>is</i> delight... [In sum,] <i>if we do not taste the beauty of Christ in his promises as delightful, or as satisfying, we do not yet believe in a saving, transforming way</i>" (pp. 205-206, emphasis original).<br />
<br />
My beef with this is the focus on the fruit of faith (confidence, joy, hope, delight, and satisfaction) as faith itself. I understand Piper's position that saving faith is a gift of God (a point with which I agree). And I also appreciate his desire to guard against "cheap grace" and "easy-believism." But I'm not convinced that Scripture presents faith primarily as a satisfaction in God (particularly satisfaction as interpreted through Piper's strongly <i>emotional</i> lens). Rather, it seems to me that faith consist most fundamentally in trusting God to keep His promises, irrespective of our ability to contribute <i>anything</i> (including our affections and delight) (e.g., Rom. 4:16-25, Heb. 11).<br />
<br />
If we were to adopt Piper's conceptualization of faith as delight, then it seems we'd need to place an asterisk next to many of the key statements about faith or belief (Greek <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 18px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 18px; color: #001320; font-family: Cardo, GentiumAlt, 'Galilee Unicode Gk', 'Galatia SIL', 'Palatino Linotype', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 17px; line-height: 21px;">πίστις</span>) in Scripture. For example:<br />
<br />
Mark 1:15:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-24231" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; vertical-align: text-top;">15</sup> “The time has come,”</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">he said.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span class="woj">“The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news*!”</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span class="woj">*i.e., "Repent and be satisfied with all the God is for you in Christ!"</span></span><br />
<br />
Acts 16:31:<br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”</div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">They replied, “Believe* in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”</div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">* i.e., "Delight in the Lord Jesus"</div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small;">The difficulties with the faith-as-delight view are especially striking in Paul's epistles:</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Galatians 2:16</div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29098" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; vertical-align: text-top;">16</sup></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith* in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in* Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 6px;">*</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">*i.e., treasuring/treasured</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Philippians 3:9</div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29431" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; vertical-align: text-top;">9</sup></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith* in</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith*.</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">* i.e., joy</span></div><br />
<br />
At this point, I ask: If God, the Author and Lord of language, who had any words at His disposal to express the truths of salvation, intended to drive home the point Piper is making, why did He choose to express it primarily in terms of <i>faith</i>, rather than of <i>delight</i>? Under Piper's definition, it appears we are not justified by <i>faith</i>, but by <i>satisfaction/delight/treasuring/joy</i>. I know that Piper would not deny justification by faith - in fact, he is one of the most ardent defenders of the doctrine in our day. However, I worry that the above formulation of faith ends up denying justification by faith <i>indirectly</i>, by redefining faith as something other than trusting God's promises. If he objects to N.T. Wright's supposed view of justification "on the basis of/according to works," how does Piper avoid asserting a justification on the basis of/according to affections?<br />
<br />
I realize this all sounds very critical of Christian Hedonism, and I don't intend any disrespect to Piper, a far greater man than I am. I just wonder how it is that we're supposed to be continually delighting in and treasuring God when, under Piper's system, I'm continually in danger of proving to have never been converted if I don't continually keep up a sufficient level of delight in God (How much in order to know I'm saved? Just a little more than I've got now?). If I wake up on the wrong side of the bed and don't feel that "zip" in my morning devotion, this may signal that I'm reprobate. And am I supposed to <i>enjoy</i> relating to the God who is about to damn me to hell for my lack of enjoyment of Him? I don't see how!<br />
<br />
In short, if I must believe in order to be saved, and I must delight in order to "really" believe, how can I delight until I know that Christ has actually accomplished salvation <i>for me</i>? It seems little grounds for joy to say, "Only when you get adequately satisfied in this Christ who <i>might</i> <i>not ye</i>t be your Savior, will he prove to <i>be</i> your Savior - so get on with delighting, you could-be-saint!"<br />
<br />
On the other hand, when I contemplate the objective work of Christ on my behalf (rather than my subjective work of delighting in Him), I find this brings real joy! I think I'll go read some Luther...<br />
<br />
__________________________________________________<br />
<br />
[1] Piper, J. (1986). <i>Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist.</i> Sisters, OR: Multnomah.<br />
<br />
[2] Piper, J. (2004). <i>When I don't desire God.</i> Wheaton, IL: Crossway.<br />
<br />
[3] Lewis, C. S. (1955). <i>Surprised by joy</i>. New York: Harvest.<br />
<br />
[4] Piper, J. (1995). <i>Future grace</i>. Sisters, OR: Multnohmah.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-6059870330816237172010-12-03T14:50:00.000-05:002010-12-03T14:50:23.984-05:00Zach Nielsen & Crossway Want to Give You Books!In the midst of your Christmas shopping, check this out. Zach Nielsen's <a href="http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/">blog</a> is giving away a stash of great books from Crossway this month. <a href="http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2010/12/december-book-giveaway-its-good-one.html">Click on over and sign up</a> - they'd make great Christmas presents (to yourself or someone else)!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-3077824908311226002010-07-01T09:41:00.003-04:002010-07-01T09:44:53.371-04:00What Theologian Am I?I recently took this test (available <a href="http://quizfarm.com/quizzes/new/svensvensven/which-theologian-are-you/index.php">here</a>) to tell me which theologian I am most like. Apparently, I'm 87% Anselmian. If I'm going to be likened to a medieval theologian, I can't complain too much about this one. <br />
<br />
But 53% Schleiermacher? Ouch! That's still too much for me. And I didn't know I was such a Barthian. Interesting... But at least I'm furthest from Tillich. This makes me happy :)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: blue;"><span id="text_block">You Scored as <b>Anselm</b></span>. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'</div><div style="color: blue;"><br />
</div><div style="color: blue;"><span id="graph_block"> </span></div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Anselm</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">87%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Karl Barth</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">80%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">John Calvin</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">80%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Jonathan Edwards</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">67%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Friedrich Schleiermacher</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">53%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Charles Finney</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">40%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Martin Luther</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">40%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Augustine</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">33%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Jürgen Moltmann</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">20%</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color: blue;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="150"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">Paul Tillich</span></td> <td width="130"><table bgcolor="#dddddd" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="center" width="40">20%</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span id="graph_block"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-18849684258763381552010-06-30T21:16:00.000-04:002010-06-30T21:16:00.473-04:00Pray for Christopher HitchensChristopher Hitchens is cutting his book tour short in order to begin chemotherapy for apparent esophageal cancer. Whatever you think of the man, his ideas, and his public persona, pray that the Lord would heal him and reveal Himself to him during this time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2010/06/rs-_hitchens.html">Link</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-84576192176779820892010-06-25T11:20:00.000-04:002010-06-25T11:20:27.512-04:00Mark Noll on How His Mind Has ChangedFrom the <a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/index.lasso">Christian Century</a>, Mark Noll provides an <a href="http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8474">autobiographical retrospective</a> of his faith journey. While today it's common to read "how my mind has changed" narratives in terms of leaving behind old dogmas, Noll writes beautifully about his journey deeper into the Gospel truths he has always believed: <br />
<div style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</div><span style="color: #0b5394; font-size: x-small;"><span class="article_body">To the best that I can discern, "how my mind has changed" goes something like this: the basic dogmas of Nicene Christianity have become more important—they now seem truer—than in the hour I first believed. From that hour I knew that Christianity was deep and that it was beautiful. Now I believe that the depth is unfathomable and the beauty supernal beyond telling.</span></span><br />
In an age of "growth," "journey," and "theological pilgrimage" that often signify nothing more than trendy heterodox reinterpretation of The Faith, Noll's example points the way toward the kind of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:17-19&version=HCSB">growth God calls us to</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://www.trevinwax.com/">HT</a>: Trevin Wax</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-4976091635289712172010-04-09T13:15:00.002-04:002010-04-09T13:16:25.128-04:00Scot McKnight on the Demise of the Quest for the Historical JesusIn the latest issue of Christianity Today, Scot McKnight has an <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/april/15.22.html?start=5">outstanding overview</a> of the current state of historical Jesus research - pretty much dead. And to McKnight, that's a good thing. After reading McKnight, I think you'll concur.<br />
<br />
A sample: <br />
<div style="color: #0b5394;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he <i>thought</i> his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died <i>for our sins</i> and was raised <i>for our justification.</i></span></div><br />
In the final analysis, argues McKnight, we must answer this question:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i style="color: #0b5394;">Whose</i><span style="color: #0b5394;"> Jesus will we trust? Will it be that of the evangelists and the apostles? Will it be that of the church—the creedal, orthodox Jesus? Will it be the latest proposal from a brilliant historian? Or will it be our own consensus based on modern-day historical scholarship? </span></span><br />
<br />
Indeed, whose Jesus will we trust? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Also, be sure to check out the rejoinders from <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/april/16.27.html">N.T. Wright</a>, <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/april/17.27.html">Craig Keener</a>, and <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/aprilweb-only/24-51.0.html">Darrell Bock</a> on the issue.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-88902562567458412622010-04-05T11:09:00.003-04:002010-04-05T11:09:49.335-04:00I Don't Get the Hatred for Rick WarrenNo need to elaborate. The title is all I have to say.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-14991479237367431382010-04-01T08:36:00.001-04:002010-04-01T08:36:27.512-04:00Exegesis, or "Extra Jesus"?My wife once related to me a humorous story from her seminary days. It seems a certain young woman at her seminary, on fire for the Lord but new to the seminary environment and unfamiliar with theological vocabulary, overheard some students discussing their "exegesis" class. Only she didn't hear "exegesis" - she heard it as "extra-Jesus". <i>The gall of those students!</i>, she thought, <i>Thinking they have extra Jesus just because they take this class!</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
The story is humorous, and yet it's tragic. It's tragic because I identify with it. I have a tendency to believe that engaging in spiritual disciplines like prayer and Bible reading in some way earns me more of God's favor. Yes, I tend to believe that <i>exegesis</i> earns me <i>extra Jesus</i>. In the name of "discipline" or "passionate pursuit of God," we can become legalists, basing our acceptance with God on our ability to engage in rigorous spiritual activity. We can turn the <i>means</i> of grace into the <i>basis</i> of grace.<br />
<br />
As a new husband and full-time graduate student, I simply don't have the free time I once had to pursue spiritual disciplines to the degree I would like. It's easy to spend hours a day studying Scripture when you're a single guy with few commitments in your life. Those in such situations can easily acquire an aura of spiritual superiority (<i>What, brother?!? Thou </i>only<i> spent an hour in the Word today? Such sloth! I shall intercede for thee</i>). But what of the graduate student cramming for finals? What of the single parent, working two jobs and raising kids? What do you do when real life intrudes on your bourgeois theological leisure time?<br />
<br />
I'm not suggesting that time in the Word, in prayer, etc. is unimportant - in fact, the busier we are, the more important it is. But what I am suggesting is that we (I) must not let the necessity of these things become a legalistic burden. If, in the midst of studying for a midterm, I miss a meal, my stomach will let me know. But I don't condemn myself for missing a meal - rather, I run to the fridge, where the food is! In the same way, if in the midst of our busy lives, we find that we don't have all the time we would like for spiritual disciplines, rather than beating ourselves up, we should appreciate the hunger that we <i>do</i> feel. Hunger is good - it points us to food! If we miss a devotion, a prayer time, a Bible study, we'll feel a gnawing hunger. And that hunger isn't meant to drive us <i>from</i> the Bread of Life - it's meant to drive us <i>to</i> Him!<br />
<br />
Yes, pursue spiritual growth. Yes, seek God with all your heart. Yes, become a student of the Word. But don't fall for the lie that exegesis equals "extra Jesus."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-46868098425665905412010-03-28T22:09:00.001-04:002010-03-29T11:01:24.760-04:00Theological Perfectionism and Translation WarsLee Irons<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">, whose blog </span><a href="http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/">The Upper Register</a> I've recently discovered, has the following to say in his post, "<a href="http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2009/08/the-problem-of-theological-perfectionism.html">The Problems of Theological Perfectionism</a>." The whole post is worth reading, but I'm particularly struck by his comments on Bible translation debates:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'trebuchet ms'; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #0b5394;">There are many other examples which show the problems with theological perfectionism.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #0b5394;">English versions of the Bible</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #0b5394;">. It's easy to nit-pick at a translation of a particular verse. It's fun to mock someone else's Bible. Some scholars have even written whole books against particular versions, as if to save people from the damaging effects of a bad translation. But would to God that more evangelicals did in fact read and study their TNIVs or their New Living Translations. It would do more good than all the self-help books being cranked out by the evangelical publishing companies. Just as the Spirit can bring people to saving faith through imperfect presentations of the gospel, so he can use flawed translations of the Bible to help us grow in spiritual maturity.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">Would that all God's people read more of their "paraphrased" Messages and "wooden" NASBs and "archaic" KJVs and "liberal" NRSVs and "Calvinist" ESVs and "feminist" TNIVs! </span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;">God states, "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #001320; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 23:29). </span></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #001320; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; line-height: normal;">Would that God would break our rocky hearts of pride with the hammer of His Word (in whatever imperfect translation we read it)!</span></span></span></span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-13837174673274311072010-02-01T11:08:00.002-05:002010-02-01T11:13:55.647-05:00Save a Life - Chip Stam<object height="295" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VJTQVNjkhMI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VJTQVNjkhMI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>For those of you who know or are familiar with Chip Stam, professor in the School of Church Worship and Music at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (and music minister at my wife's former church in Louisville, Clifton Baptist), he needs help. Click below to find out how you can help.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/01/31/save-a-life/">Save a Life</a><br />
<br />
Posted using <a href="http://sharethis.com/">ShareThis</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-792483920940607442009-12-21T13:15:00.005-05:002009-12-21T13:29:05.209-05:00D'Souza, Lewis and the Proper Role of ApologeticsWhat is the appropriate role of apologetics? Dinesh D'Souza, in a <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/december/19.38.html">Christianity Today interview </a>about his latest book <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=WW980990&p=1006327"><span style="font-style: italic;">Life After Death: The Evidence</span></a>, provides a great reply to the question:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What is the role of [your] kind of apologetics in convincing someone to become a Christian?</span><br /><br />D'Souza replies:<br /><p style="font-family: arial;" class="answer"><span style="font-size:85%;">Apologetics is a very powerful tool, but it's ultimately janitorial. Many people encounter obstacles to the faith. Think of the Christian, for example, who loses a relative and is assailed by the question, <em>Why did God allow that</em>? Even the believer can be haunted by difficulties that get in the way of building a relationship with God. </span></p> <p style="font-family: arial;" class="answer"><span style="font-size:85%;">Apologetics can come in and help to make important distinctions and clarify some of the difficulties. You are doing no more than clearing away debris that blocks the door to faith, and ultimately it is God's love that has to work its way into a heart. Conversion ultimately comes from that; apologetics only clears the driveway.</span></p><p class="answer">This is a good reminder that while apologetics can be <span style="font-style: italic;">helpful</span> to faith, they are never the object or ground of faith. That belongs only to Jesus Christ.</p><p class="answer">C.S. Lewis warns about the danger of our faith becoming overly dependent on apologetic arguments, rather than on Christ himself:</p><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" >I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist…. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality – from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. </span><span style=";font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;" > ("Christian Apologetics" in <i>God in the Dock</i>, p. 103)</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-87238451906748746962009-12-03T08:59:00.004-05:002009-12-03T10:13:12.352-05:00Adrian Warnock Wants It All!I stumbled across a link to an <a href="http://adrianwarnock.com/2007/07/i-dont-want-balance-i-want-it-all.htm">old post</a> from British blogger-extraordinaire, Adrian Warnock. In the post, entitled "I Don't Want Balance, I Want It All!", Warnock states that he's tired of merely seeking to be "balanced" spiritually - he asks, "Why can't we have it all?"<br /><br />In our desire for respectability and "balance" (from the point of view of our respective groups), we have a tendency to set up oppositions between Word, Spirit, doctrinal fidelity, passionate encounters with Jesus, outreach to the world, inreach to the Church, social action, faithful gospel preaching, strategic leadership, missional zeal, heartfelt worship, rigorous study, and Book-of-Acts signs and wonders. But why?<br /><br />Why pick and choose?<br /><br />Why can't we have it all?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-79362946811265158142009-11-17T08:08:00.006-05:002009-11-17T19:08:50.311-05:00Review of Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted"Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary has a <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/jesus-interrupted.php">fantastic new review</a> of <span style="font-style: italic;">Jesus Interrupted</span>, Bart Ehrman's latest popular attempt to discredit the Christian faith he rejected. One repeatedly gets the sense in Ehrman's writing that he has not so much rejected fundamentalism as simply shifted from a Christian form of fundamentalism to an agnostic form of it.<br /><br />Kruger notes,<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Ehrman's inability to accept the natural verbal flexibility in ancient literature suggests that he (ironically) still may be reading the gospels in the same way he did in his fundamentalist days, placing modern expectations of precision and rigidness on the gospel texts that they were not meant to bear</span><span style="font-size:85%;">.<span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /></span></span>In a<a href="http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart"> review</a> of Ehrman's previous book, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Misquoting Jesus</span>, Daniel Wallace noted,<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>I</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >t seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Wallace has noted that most theological liberals started out as fundamentalists, and simply shifted their views from a Christian fundamentalism to a liberal (or atheistic) fundamentalism. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Ehrman is a good example of someone whose "black and white mentality", particularly in regard to the phenomenon of Scripture, led to an either-or dichotomy between "Bible-as-a-magic-book" and "Bible-as-a-fraud." He serves as a </span><span style="font-size:100%;">sobering reminder of the need to think</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" > Biblically</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> about the Bible, deriving our doctrine of Scripture from <span style="font-style: italic;">Scripture</span> rather than unexamined pre-assumptions about what the nature of the Bible <span style="font-style: italic;">must</span> be. I'm afraid Ehrman has essentially built his career on the claim, "The Bible isn't the way <span style="font-style: italic;">I </span>think it ought to be - therefore, it's a fraud."<br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-42313549774218674262009-11-09T11:46:00.003-05:002009-11-09T11:54:20.511-05:00Gluttony As an Appetite SuppressantIn <span style="font-style: italic;">Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin</span>, Cornelius Plantinga highlights the corruption that sin unleashes in our lives. One of the primary ways in which sin corrupts, he notes, is by dulling our appetite for the things we <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> desire. He writes<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">...Self-indulgence tends to suppress gratitude; self-discipline tends to generate it. That is why gluttony is a deadly sin: oddly, it is an appetite suppressant. The reason is that a person's appetites are linked: full stomachs and jaded palates take the edge from our hunger and thirst for justice. And they spoil the appetite for God"</span></span> <span style="font-size:85%;">(p. 35)*.</span><br /><br /></div><br />S<span style="font-size:78%;"></span>o, what are you glutting yourself on today?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* Plantinga, C. (1995). <span style="font-style: italic;">Not the way it's supposed to be: A breviary of sin</span>. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-87857088327397218312009-09-25T11:34:00.003-04:002009-09-25T12:04:52.072-04:00Nevertheless, Love Your ChurchRay Ortlund, pastor of Emmanuel Church in Nashville, TN, had a great post yesterday, <a href="http://christisdeeperstill.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-church-or-kingdom.html">"My Church or the Kingdom?"</a>. In it, Ortlund addresses the common notion that building up God's kingdom is more important than building up one's own church. He asks:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Suppose I said, "My passion isn't to build up my marriage. My passion is for Marriage. I want the institution of Marriage to be revered again. I'll work for that. I'll pray for that. I'll sacrifice for that. But don't expect me to hunker down in the humble daily realities of building a great marriage with my wife Jani. I'm aiming at something grander."</span><br /><br />We would rightly call such a view of marriage absurd. How can one have a passion for Marriage without having a passion for one's own, <span style="font-style: italic;">particular</span> marriage? <br /><br />Likewise, Ortlund points out the absurdity of working for "The Church" without working for one's own, <span style="font-style: italic;">local</span> church. How often do we say things like, "It's not about going to church, it's about being the Church"? How often do we strive for "global justice" while neglecting the pursuit of justice in our own churches, home and neighborhoods? How often do we rail against "false doctrine in the Church" while making little effort to build our own churches up through solid, Biblical doctrine?<br /><br />I'm reminded of Paul's admonition to husbands and wives in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-33&version=TNIV">Ephesians 5:22-33</a>. In it, Paul gives undoubtedly the most exalted, transcendant view of marriage ever written, probing the unsearchable mystery of marriage as a cosmic portrait of Christ and the Church. Lest his readers be tempted to then say, "<span style="font-style: italic;">Ah! So what really matters is not marriage itself, but that greater spiritual reality that it signifies</span>", Paul pointedly returns to the necessity of loving one's own spouse. He says,<br /><br />"This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. <span style="font-style: italic;">Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular</span> so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph. 5:32-33, NKJV, emphasis added).<br /><br />Paul knows our temptation to focus on abstract spirtitual principles and neglect our day-to-day duties. His point is that, if we are ever to glorify Christ and the Church in our marriages, we must start by individually, daily, loving our spouses. Only then we ever hope to reflect the greater image that marriage points to.<br /><br />I believe Paul would say the same to us today in relation to our churches. "Yes," he'd say, "by all means be Kingdom-minded. By all means, seek to build up the universal Church. Nevertheless, let each one of your in particular love your flawed, human, local church. Only then can you ever hope to truly build up the Church and the Kingdom."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-8524762712746273122009-09-17T11:32:00.002-04:002009-09-17T11:54:04.419-04:00Perspectives on Translation: Ryken vs. Fee & StraussRegardless of your opinion on Bible translations, it's important to educated yourself about the issues involved in faithfully translating the Biblical messages from the original languages into English (or any other language). That's why it's imperative to listen to people on both sides of the "Formal vs. Functional Equivalent" debate. Too many unfortunate misunderstandings arise when individuals either blindly latch onto formal equivalence translations as the most "literal" (and therefore most "accurate"), or consider <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> contemporary relevance and side with functional equivalence in contrast to (supposedly) "wooden" and "archaic" formal translations.<br /><br />As with most complex issues, the truth is somewhere in between. While volumes have been written on translation issues, two good (and free!) introductions to the arguments for Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence are, respectively, <a href="http://www.esv.org/translation/woge">The Word of God in English</a> by Leland Ryken (advocates formal translation) and <a href="http://www.biblica.com/bibles/tniv/greek-to-me.php">It's All Greek To Me</a> by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss (advocates functional and mediating translations). I won't hide the fact that I'm more persuaded by Fee and Stuart's arguments, but Ryken's book does highlight some issues worth considering.<br /><br />I should also note that Leland Ryken has a new book coming out this week, <a href="http://www.crossway.org/product/9781433502798">Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach</a>. The <a href="http://www.crossway.org/blog/">Crossway blog</a> has a series of <a href="http://www.crossway.org/blog/2009/09/on-bible-translations-a-qa-with-leland-ryken-part-1/">interviews</a> with him about the book and translation theory in general.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-31856423795561956662009-09-15T11:58:00.004-04:002009-09-15T12:08:19.166-04:00NIV Study Bible in Renaissance Leather - Cheap!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7a94S4ewCxAJvBDghS3oOxeACf7g9lWoKVeZwaoX_UYaWWcDT_qdRDbA6yuOI5neD69jou_mLsobQqSoVKSRL1g3FNyswTsS1G2TUEQ1Mln8-S3ltjFZf8g64BxLdkm6RdgEYl9frx3F2/s1600-h/NIVSB.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 151px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7a94S4ewCxAJvBDghS3oOxeACf7g9lWoKVeZwaoX_UYaWWcDT_qdRDbA6yuOI5neD69jou_mLsobQqSoVKSRL1g3FNyswTsS1G2TUEQ1Mln8-S3ltjFZf8g64BxLdkm6RdgEYl9frx3F2/s200/NIVSB.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5381726640226741362" border="0" /></a><br />Those of you who follow me here know that I'm a TNIV man, but I have a great deal of love for the good ol' NIV too. And when it comes to study Bibles, the NIV Study Bible has been the evangelical gold standard for years. Right now, CBD is offering a <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/niv-compact-edition-renaissance-leather-espresso/9780310939597/pd/939590?item_code=WW&netp_id=524337&event=EBRN&view=covers">compact NIV Study Bible in Renaissance Fine Leather</a> for the insanely-good price of $34.99. That's about what you'd normally pay for the paperback edition. My main Bible is a TNIV Reference Bible in Renaissance Leather, and I can tell you it is some of the nicest, most supple leather you'll find in a Bible.<br /><br />Of course, the NIV is due for an update in 2011. But if you can't wait, don't be afraid to jump on this deal. You won't regret it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-67421424887906607662009-09-02T14:54:00.027-04:002009-09-02T18:27:04.281-04:00Thoughts on NIV2011<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31A9XZpPKc05XZYl-dGgpBIDHgemXjtiUFgf4x4YuQIBSSmUQeIFiRiwH9xi0gPnKojdyjU83tvCt9HvlxPvm9FRzCwHyF00sXwrFeOsvGp1NrPVS2D-G6dZ-HipXvA1xjYOQ2slLcaXD/s1600-h/niv+study.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 130px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31A9XZpPKc05XZYl-dGgpBIDHgemXjtiUFgf4x4YuQIBSSmUQeIFiRiwH9xi0gPnKojdyjU83tvCt9HvlxPvm9FRzCwHyF00sXwrFeOsvGp1NrPVS2D-G6dZ-HipXvA1xjYOQ2slLcaXD/s200/niv+study.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376999542190818626" border="0" /></a><br />When I first saw that <a href="http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html">TNIV was being discontinued</a> and replaced by an updated NIV in 2011, I was disappointed. However, upon thinking more about it, I'll admit I'm cautiously excited about the whole development. While I lament the failure of the TNIV to ever really take off, I think this presents a wonderful opportunity for the Committe on Bible Translation and the church at large. Here are my thoughts:<br /><br />1) The unfortunate saga of the TNIV has certainly been educational for anyone working in Bible translation. It seems the NIVI/TNIV translators genuinely underestimated the negative response to the "gender accurate" translation policy. A few factors probably contributed to this:<br /><br />Bible translators spend their days immersed in the study of linguistics. They deal day in and day out with the complexities of language and the challenges of transferring meaning from one language to another. Linguistics and translation theory are second nature to them.<br /><br />On the other hand, the majority of pastors, let alone laypeople, have neither the time nor the training to think on this level consistently about nuances of language. They justifiably rely on English translations to understand the Bible. When a new translation, no matter how linguistically warranted, sounds "different from how I've always read it", it's understandable that many readers could get nervous.<br /><br />Translators need to be constantly aware not only of the linguistic merits of their translations, but also of how changes to familiar renderings are likely to be received by everyday readers (yes, I realize the irony, in that this was the very concern that drove the production of the TNIV in the first place). Now, I for one think that the gender policy followed by the TNIV is appropriate. However, many readers (and a good number of pastors and scholars) did not. In retrospect, perhaps the CBT and Zondervan should have done more to anticipate the negative response that followed, and worked more to educate pastors, scholars and everyday readers about the rationale for the changes before moving ahead with the translation.<br /><br />2) While many have interpreted the today's <a href="http://www.nivbible2011.com/index.php?option=com_page&key=pr">announcement</a> as a concession that the TNIV and its translation philosophy were a mistake <span style="font-style: italic;">in themselves</span>, I don't think that's at all what Zondervan or the CBT meant.<br /><br />Let's analyze the thrust of the statement. According to Biblica CEO Keith Danby:<br /><br />"The first mistake was the NIVi. The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV."<br /><br />First, the release of the NIVi was a mistake, according to Danby. That may well be - I'm not really competent to comment on it. I haven't read much from the NIVi, though I admit to being less than comfortable with some statements in its <span style="font-style: italic;">preface</span>. It seems that the NIVi was what really touched off the firestorm (for example, see Grudem & Poythress' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Neutral-Bible-Controversy-Muting-Masculinity/dp/0805424415"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words</span></a>). However, whatever one's view of the NIVi, it was not the TNIV.<br /><br />Second, according to Danby, the freezing of the NIV was a mistake. To which I give a hearty <span style="font-style: italic;">amen</span>! Zondervan and the IBS (now Biblica) should never have allowed the NIV to become forever stuck in 1997 (actually, 1984, the date of its last previous revision). It's now been 25 years since last NIV revision, and a lot of developments have occurred in the areas of Biblical languages and archaelogy. The NIV needed revision in 1997, and it needs it even more twelve years later.<br /><br />Third, notice what Danby did not say. He did not say that the <span style="font-style: italic;">TNIV</span> was a mistake. He said that <span style="font-style: italic;">"the process of handling the TNIV"</span> was a mistake. And on any account, mistakes were made. It could have been introduced more tactfully. It could have been presented as a more accurate Bible for all demographics (along with the inclusion of more "grown up" bindings), rather than being marketed primarily as a niche Bible for the 18-34 year old crowd. Zondervan could have ceased pushing the NIV and marketed the TNIV as its replacement. In hindsight, I'm sure that Zondervan and Biblica would say things could have been handled more skillfully in regard to rolling out the TNIV alongside the "frozen" NIV and in regard to the ill-fated negotiations with the Colorado Springs folks (though they felt, it would seem justifiably, backed into a corner).<br /><br />3) The Committee on Bible Translation has its work cut out for it. They have to walk a razor's edge in updating the NIV. Douglas Moo, head of the CBT, implied that the 2011 NIV would probably incorporate around 90% of the NIV and 95% of the TNIV. On one hand, if the updated NIV rolls back all the gender-related changes introduced in the TNIV, the anti-TNIV crowd will be happy, but many TNIV supporters will likely feel betrayed and jump ship (presumably to the NLT or NRSV). Not only that, but such a move would call into question the need for an update at all. Personally, I doubt this will be the direction taken by the CBT.<br /><br />On the other hand, if the 2011 NIV is seen by TNIV opponents as keeping too closely to the TNIV in regard to gendered language, it risks tipping the balance once and for all against not only the NIV, but against the concept of dynamic equivalence as a whole. The anti-DE voices have been swelling for a while now (witness the popularity of John Piper's <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1963_get_a_bible_with_all_the_words/">"Get a Bible with All the Words in It</a>" video and Leeland Ryken's <a href="http://www.esv.org/translation/woge"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Word of God in English</span></a>), and combined with a growing informal ESV-onlyism, could signal the death of the legitimacy of dynamic equivalence in evangelical circles.<br /><br />Regardless of your stand on translation philosophy, the CBT deserves our prayers.<br /><br />4) Whether you loved the TNIV or loathed it, give the new NIV a fighting chance! While there's lots of speculation about just what the updated edition will look like, the truth is nobody will really know until 2011. TNIV-lovers need to be willing to give the new NIV a fair reading, without reading it through a lens of assumed misogyny in the wording. TNIV opponents need to be willing to give it a fair reading as well, without imposing their feelings or objections about the TNIV onto this new work.<br /><br />While he and I would hold different views on the TNIV, <a href="http://almohler.com/">Al Mohler</a> provided a <a href="http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-NIV-Announcement-A-Statement">generous response</a> to the new development, noting:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"In the end, the update of the NIV to be released in 2011 will have to stand on its own... When released, the updated NIV will deserve and require the attentive study and review of all committed evangelicals."</span></span><br /><br />In summary, I'm cautiously optimistic that the 2011 NIV will incorporate the best of the TNIV, but be more palatable to those who were never going to embrace the TNIV. Let's pray so.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-14825236728231843992009-09-02T09:14:00.005-04:002009-09-02T18:25:01.674-04:00R.I.P., TNIV<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPpcJDp5-7Zul30ZURq0EM4N4M53Dw_m3IdAC74XCBgNSblUGHEwZVGTQZanQFDxNIQxqJaki3wSK5q9pYmfotMPm-Q0jjW7QJlVJKGWGgqWUJ-F9lAcDTqCQZiox_gQbSG_YiS1wovMya/s1600-h/TNIV.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 136px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPpcJDp5-7Zul30ZURq0EM4N4M53Dw_m3IdAC74XCBgNSblUGHEwZVGTQZanQFDxNIQxqJaki3wSK5q9pYmfotMPm-Q0jjW7QJlVJKGWGgqWUJ-F9lAcDTqCQZiox_gQbSG_YiS1wovMya/s200/TNIV.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5376999669932023986" border="0" /></a><br />Well, well. What a disheartening start to my day. <a href="http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html"> Zondervan/Biblica announced today</a> that they will soon cease production and marketing of the TNIV. An updated NIV is slated for 2011. While I'm disappointed, I can't say I'm shocked. Here's wishing the updated NIV team (NNIV?) all the best.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-11722259178917589182009-08-24T12:40:00.005-04:002009-08-25T11:27:57.763-04:00Looks like I Need My Appendix After All!Over a century ago, Charles Darwin argued that the human appendix was an evolutionary holdover from our biological ancestors, a sort of genetic anachronism. This claim has been trumpeted by proponents of Darwinism as sure-fire evidence of macroevolution, and has repeatedly been employed in polemics against the teleological argument (or argument from design).<br /><br />Now, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising">a new report by Duke medical researchers</a> indicates that the appendix, that oft-maligned "vestigial organ" of evolutionary yesteryear, may play a key role in immune functioning. It appears that the appendix serves as a sort of reservoir, or holding tank, for beneficial intestinal bacteria. In the event that our stores of good bacteria are wiped out by illness, the appendix stands ready to repopulate our digestive system with these immune boosters.<br /><br />This reversal of opinion on the appendix is a good example of the dynamic state of scientific consensus, and the fact that "what everyone knows to be true" in a given field is open to revision. Christians should be wary of accepting uncritically the "assured results" of scholarly investigation, whether scientific, historical, theological or otherwise, when those appear to contradict Christian teaching. At the same time, Christians must also be wary of marrying their own theological and apologetic formulations too closely to the results of human scholarly investigation, even when those results appear to bolster Christian claims (note the frequent back-and-forth of archaeological consensus on the dates of the Exodus and fall of Jericho).<br /><br />In the end, while not ignoring the fruits of scientific investigation, we would do well to set our course by Scripture, the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Otherwise, our faith is likely to suffer the fate of the Dodo - or the "vestigial" appendix.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-4383158080924367402009-08-17T11:34:00.002-04:002009-08-17T11:39:45.920-04:00John MacArthur in Washington PostWhile I'm may not see eye-to-eye with John MacArthur on every issue, he's clearly a man who is not afraid to speak what he believes with conviction. His <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/08/read_the_gospels_jc_is_not_pc.html">recent invited editorial</a> in the Washington Post confirms it. Highlighting Jesus' strong and consistent message of repentance, MacArthur takes to the woodshed the popular vision of Jesus as a hippie guru preaching unconditional tolerance. He shows that whatever Jesus may be, he is not consistent with the modern politically correct ethos. It's worth checking out.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-82154040441600992009-07-22T15:49:00.003-04:002009-07-22T15:55:29.226-04:00Hot Dogs, Puppies and the Gospel, Pt. 2For those of you new here, this post continues the discussion begun in my <a href="http://savlasav.blogspot.com/2009/07/hot-dogs-puppies-and-gospel.html">last post</a>. In that post, I summarized the concept of semantic noise, which occurs when communication suffers because the communicators bring different assumed meanings of words into the conversation (e.g., I think "dog = frankfurter" while you think "dog = puppy" in the statement, "I can't wait to get a dog"). Now, to bring this around to the gospel...<br /><br />I'm currently reading N.T. Wright's "Simply Christian." In it, Wright makes the point that common English usage of the word "God" contributes to much confusion in presenting the gospel biblically (i.e., on the Bible's own terms).<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Simply Christian, N.T. Wright, 2006 Harper Collins</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br /><br />Part of the problem lies in the word we use. The English word "God," with or without a capital G, does double duty. First, it's a common noun (like "chair," "table," "dog," and "cat"), denoting a divine being. When we say, "What kind of gods did the early Egyptians believe in?" we all understand the question: there are, we take it, various possible types of gods, and indeed goddesses, worshipped and spoken of in various traditions. But the word "God" and its equivalents is also regularly used, in those languages affected by the great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), as a kind of proper or personal name. If you ask someone, even in today's Western world, "Do you believe in God?" the question will be heard (and presumably intended) in the sense of "the one God of the Judeo-Christian tradition." That's quite a different question from, "Do you believe in </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> god?" - p. 56-57</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Wright is wonderfully insightful on this point. And yet, I wonder if perhaps the slipperiness of the word "God" runs deeper than even he suspects. I'm afraid that in many cases, when Christians attempt to speak of God to a biblically illiterate world, they fail to account for the possibility of semantic noise when speaking of "God" in English.<br /><br />I wonder how many people, particularly in the West, noting the Judeo-Christian usage of "God," recognize that they themselves believe in a "god" (i.e., a vague spiritual entity) of some sort, and thereby count themselves believers in the Judeo-Christian God?<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span>When orthodox Christians and Jews use the word "God," they mean (or ought to mean) "Yahweh," the covenant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. However, when many Westerners speak of "God" in everyday usage, they mean "the spiritual entity or reality that most appeals to me." "God/god" language becomes an avenue for the smuggling of non-biblical notions of God into an ostensibly biblical framework. Is constructive dialogue, let alone evangelism, really possible with such semantic confusion? <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Undoubtedly - it is possible, and often occurs, in contexts steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview. For example, in the Southern United States, even many unbelievers, having grown up with a cultural memory of the Judeo-Christian God, hear something akin to "Yahweh" when "God" is mentioned. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is never constrained by the limits of language, and is perfectly willing to cause the truth of the gospel to break out of linguistic constraints in amazing ways. Nevertheless, as cultures grow more detached from the biblical metanarrative and biblical illiteracy rises, I'm afraid that in many contexts, the slippery nature of the general English term "God" serves as a barrier to effective communication of the gospel. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>How many Westerners, upon hearing the statement, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", immediately understand it as "Yahweh, the God of Israel, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life"? Or do they hear something more akin to "The Man Upstairs/the Cosmic Watchmaker/the Old Guy with the Big Beard in the Sky/the Principle of Higher Consciousness/the Indomitable Human Spirit loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life"? Failure to clarify the exact nature of the "God" of whom we speak, both in terms of who He is, and is not, will in many cases result in semantic noise rather than clear gospel communication.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Now, given this state of affairs, should we give up talking about "God", or yield to a linguistic agnosticism about ever speaking truthfully about Him? Not for a moment. But that's for my next post...</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-67190104223824231012009-07-20T09:48:00.009-04:002009-07-20T15:23:01.209-04:00Hot Dogs, Puppies and the Gospel, Pt. 1It's a perfect summer day as you and your kids gear up to head to the ballpark to catch a glimpse of America's favorite pastime. The crack of the bats, the crunch of Crackerjacks, and the smell of a Ballpark Frank beckon you. Salivating at the thought of a juicy all-beef frank with mustard and relish, you remark offhandedly to your spouse, "I just can't wait to get a dog."<br /><br />You and the kids head out for the day to enjoy the game (and acquire the aforementioned edibles). When you return home, your spouse greets you at the door with a huge smile. "Honey, I've got something for you!" they beam. They blindfold you, lead you into the living room, and yell, "Surprise!" as they uncover your eyes just in team to see a mangy puppy doing his business all over your brand new carpet. "Isn't he great?" your spouse asks. Seeing the shock and dismay evident on your face, your spouse glares at you and whispers icily, "You said you wanted a dog...".<br /><br />Have you ever thought you communicated a message perfectly clearly to another person, only to have them attribute a completely different meaning to what you said? This failure to communicate is referred to in communication studies as "semantic noise." You may be asking now, what does this have to do with the gospel? Well, a lot, I think. But before we get there, let's explore the concept of semantic noise a little further.<br /><br />The diagram below presents a visual depiction of the communication process. The model below, based on the work of Shannon and Weaver (1940s) is vastly oversimplified, but useful for this discussion.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHIuxwab-_OtHdjywcHbrKB5UGt2wwGL8O5h-sOSk8xP8olczapwvowGT7UV12qeQoV8PMUwwqYWfbrhzDmDGmHrG9gOiiM_-6H-_368eiGzDA82GoqHncxh8qs3ZTo6eFd-fhyt7_0LZ8/s1600-h/Shannon-Weaver+Model.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 393px; height: 191px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHIuxwab-_OtHdjywcHbrKB5UGt2wwGL8O5h-sOSk8xP8olczapwvowGT7UV12qeQoV8PMUwwqYWfbrhzDmDGmHrG9gOiiM_-6H-_368eiGzDA82GoqHncxh8qs3ZTo6eFd-fhyt7_0LZ8/s320/Shannon-Weaver+Model.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5360546818860438546" border="0" /></a>Notice that the model includes an information source (you) encoding a message (a desire for a frankfurter with mustard and relish) into symbolic form (the words "I can't wait to get a dog"), sending the encoded message through a channel (sound waves in the air), to be decoded on the other end by the receiver (your spouse). Ideally, the intended message (I want a frankfurter at the ballgame today) would be interpreted by your spouse as you intended. So what happened?<br /><br />Notice the box labled "Noise Source", located in the middle of the model. Every time we communicate, there's the potential for noise to obscure or obstruct the message. Noise comes in several varieties:<br /><br /><ul><li>Physical noise: "I can't hear you - the music's too loud"</li></ul><ul><li>Physiological noise: "How can I concentrate on this sermon when I'm starving?"</li></ul><ul><li>Psychological noise: "<span style="font-style: italic;">I'm so mad at Rita for what she said</span> - Oh, I'm sorry Donna, now what were you saying?" </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic noise: Confusing "dog = frankfurter" with "dog = puppy" </li></ul><br />Semantic noise, in which communicators assign different meanings to the same word, is by far the most pernicious of these noise sources, because generally we're unaware that it's occurring. We know to turn the music down if we're experiencing physical noise, but we rarely consider the need to clarify our language so as to avoid semantic distortion of our messages.<br /><br />So, what does our humorous example of confusion over the word "dog" have to do with the Gospel? Stay tuned...<br /><br /><img src="file:///C:/Users/Tim/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" /><img src="file:///C:/Users/Tim/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png" alt="" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7041324956933010771.post-86697426143943960692009-07-10T12:08:00.006-04:002009-07-10T16:09:17.812-04:00TNIV Pocket Sienna<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310941033&QueryStringSite=Zondervan"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 142px; height: 209px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhj-ttLf61y6LMCzZqbO-_25kU0x_MAWoqiq-40rtCA2swoyqvo9hwoRS9VCUnPjcKccniHeFweQetfHLHxz9X0arj-3eUYy11IkSXsGSYH-qtNn_82VEcEBRJsMWLyNWEhwJw6KG8vALe6/s320/TNIV.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5356903799049028418" border="0" /></a><br />Kudos to Zondervan! At last, they've released a pocket-sized TNIV that doesn't scream "teeny-bopper." I had a chance to view the new <a href="http://www.amazon.com/TNIV-Pocket-Bible/dp/0310941032/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247242666&sr=1-4">TNIV Pocket Bible in Vintage Sienna Duo-Tone</a> in Barnes and Noble yesterday. I think it's a real step forward in their attempt to market the TNIV beyond the youth group market. I realize the neon green and bubble gum pink covers they've previously offered may appeal to some Bible readers, but as a twenty-something guy, I wouldn't be caught dead with one. For that reason alone, I'm thankful for this edition.<br /><img src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ETC-PA%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg" alt="" /><br />Pros:<br />The Vintage Sienna Dou-Tone cover will feel right at home to those of you familiar with the nice line of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-English-Standard-Chestnut/dp/1581346867">Trutone ESV pocket Bibles</a>. It seems Zondervan has begun paying attention to Crossway's success in offering a wide selection of size and cover options designed with the user in mind. The Duo-Tone is soft and has good flexibility. While I haven't had a chance to test it out long-term, the construction seems solid.<br /><br />Another really nice feature is the consistency in page numbering with other TNIV text editions. This makes the TNIV well-suited for public reading and Bible study, especially in outreach settings in which everyone may not know their way around the books of the Bible. This is one innovation that other Bible publishers should seek to emulate.<br /><br />Finally, the decision to release this as an all-black text edition is a nice touch, in my view. I realize many readers prefer red-letter editions, but I find black-letter editions more exegetically useful (e.g., in John 3 - I'd rather decide on textual grounds where Jesus' and John's words begin and end, than have the publisher decide for me). Not to mention the fact that poorly printed red type can cause eye strain. Which leads me to...<br /><br />Cons:<br />The text size. I'm generally okay reading pocket-sized Bibles, but I really had to squint to read the 5.8 pt. font on this one. While my eyes aren't too bad, I think I'd struggle reading this for an extended period of time. Had they gone with a slightly larger font (see, for example, the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Christian-Standard-Leather/dp/1586402420/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1">HCSB Large Print Compact Bible </a>- 8 pt. font), this would be an ideal edition.<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />The TNIV Pocket Bible in Vintage Sienna Duo-Tone represents a positive step forward in Zondervan's push to gain wider usage of the TNIV. This would be a great pick-up as a travel/backpack Bible or for someone wanting to try the out the TNIV before plopping down big dough for a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/TNIV-Reference-Bible/dp/0310941261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247250526&sr=1-1">premium edition</a>. I love the TNIV for home study, and would like to be able to pick up a copy to read on the go. However, until Zondervan releases a pocket edition with a larger font, I'll be sticking with my HCSB Large Print Compact.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1