I have some issues. Do you ever wonder why the bulk of Church of Jesus Christ is in a passive, what-ever-happens, or who really cares mode of existence? Is it not time for some introspection as to the foundations of our attitudes. Do we have anything absolute in the context of what forms the foundation of doctrine and practice? Are we influenced by truth or have we set that aside for less challenging ideas and philosophies and ultimately less fulfilling practices and rewards. Has truth become a faint shadow walking through a foggy path of misunderstanding? Let’s go a little farther in our reflections and ask this question. Has God become the Phantom of the religious Opera, prowling through the darkened halls of legalism and theoretical God consciousness trying to coerce the unsuspecting adherent into relationship of obligation? Does He in the end shrug us off to our own pursuits while crawling into oblivion?
OK! My first contention is wrapped around the persistent effort of various religious organizations trying to deliver the most up-to-date translation of the Scriptures. I am not referring to translations that are translated into the local dialect of the people who have not had the opportunity to read about the Good News. I am singling out the many translations of our English Bible used in our English churches and English society. I understand that translating the Bible can be a difficult task at best. The translators need to be experts in original bible languages and the language being translated into. Their basic aim is to be both accurate in stating the meaning of the original texts and then to make it readable to the intended client. They struggle with the following questions. Should sexist language be changed? Should ancient phrases be explained? A few passages exist in some ancient manuscripts of the Bible, but not in others so, Should debated sections be included? Should translations be word-for-word or thought-for-thought? Should scholars make theological translations? All of that influences scholarly debate, but does it fuel spiritual growth.
Preaching today comes with some problems that arise from the above. When our parishioners enter our church buildings on a Sunday morning, I would not be surprised that about ten different translations accompany them to the pew. Which is the most beneficial for the hearers? Some are of the KJV (yes I am of this persuasion), some are the of NIV persuasion, some think one should use the Message or the Living New Testament as the Bible of choice. The problem begins with what version should we use as the foundation for a “united” family in the local church. Different translations for different people, usually radiates a mentality of everyone doing their own thing, leaving unity to be diffused to being a figment of people’s minds. What translation do we use when trying to embed the scriptures in the children and youth through “memorization?” What doctrinal foundation can be established when preachers and teachers use a particular translation of convenience to claim that their thoughts are absolute? Practice then depends on which translation supports my version of grace.
Being as I am of the KJV persuasion, but also trying to bridge the learning levels of our congregation, I research in the KJV and preach with power-point bullets highlighting the NIV and then answer enquiries after service of why the Message Bible or the Amplified Bible seems to give a different slant on the thought under discussion. I think that the absolutes about God, the need of salvation, the purpose of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the requirement of prayer, and the delightful privilege of praise and worship amongst other key spiritual activities, need a sure foundation of Scripture to be favourable to God’s presence. That is my issue!
Second issue on my short list for today is that we change scripture from the original to satisfy a localized cultural pre-determination of what is acceptable and what is not. I read with interest, Collin Hansen’s “The Son and the Crescent” in the February issue of Christianity Today. This article explains the issue of the Muslim community struggling with the concept of Jesus being addressed as the “Son of God.” Their culture pre-determines the translation of this phrase to mean that the Father engaged in sexual relations with Mary. So a new translation changes the phrase to wording which suits the culture. I pastor in a very strong Muslim community in Edmonton so I will study this further. That is for another time, but I use this article to only illustrate my point. In a broader context of many English translations, are we on a track where the reality of original scripture is altered to be “seeker sensitive?” Do we make our proclamation of the Gospel from the stand-point of what suits man and relegate God to the whim and wish of man’s desire and thought? Are our modern cultural societies the final authority in Bible translation?
In what may be simplistic, a couple of things must be kept in mind. One is that everything, from Scripture to salvation and righteousness and the cross needs to begin and end with God. Supporting this must be a belief in the ability of the Holy Spirit to take the truths of God as God gives them and plant them in fertile ground already tilled and prepared by the intention of a loving God that “none should perish.” And finally allow a genuine God applied participation in the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.
No, I won’t be changing my approach in my church. I will continue to trust that the passivity and self-centeredness of the church as a whole will be resolved through men and women spending much time in prayer and trusting God to overcome the issues, keep us faithful to His Word, bring Glory and Honour to His Name and build His church the way he wants it to be built. I will be one of those men!
No comments:
Post a Comment