When it comes to non-believers would it make sense to say that their undoing is ultimately idolatry?

What are some of the more common and perhaps more unusual idols that we have as a result of our culture (Christian or American)?

I don’t know that I have answers for all of these things, but that’s never been what this here blog is about. Let’s talk about it.

Idolatry is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Don’t let the title fool you. It’s not a book that allows you to squeak by. What it is, is an attempt to take the current “hot button” issues in Western Christianity and reveal them for what they are, points that are debated and debatable within our faith. He tackles things like doubt, evolution, the role of women in the Church, social justice, a literal reading of the scripture, how we as Christians view other religions, and homosexuality. It will come as little surprise to any of you that I agree with his take on most, if not all, of these issues. The point is, agree or not though, you can sit wherever you like on these matters and still count yourself a believer. If I have any problem with this book, it’s that he seems to be making the case that on these ten or so topics, you should actually agree with him if you want to be right. I suppose that’s hard to avoid.

One thing he does make clear is that this is not a book on systematic theology. It’s hardly a book at all, weighing in at 144 pages. That’s not much when you not only want to cover the ten things you don’t have to believe, but the ten things you do. There he talks about things like who Jesus is, how God works in people’s lives, suffering, the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit. I’m satisfied with the answers to those questions as well, as I think most mainstream Christians would be. He also makes it clear that if you believe in these doctrines, that a few things need to happen. You need to be a member/regular attender at a mainstream church. Spiritual growth is vital and will only happen in community. Central to that growth is the ongoing process of sanctification through prayer, Bible study, congregational worship, service to others, and the like.

What this book won’t do. – If you’re a conservative Christian, it’s not going to convince you to change or that you’re wrong. That’s not his point. If you’re a hard core atheist it’s not going to convince you that Jesus is the only way.

What I hope (and I suspect the author hopes) it will do. – It can show some of you that Christianity isn’t a monolithic belief system. If you’re soured on the faith because you somehow came to the conclusion that we all belong to the He Man Woman Hater’s Club or that we’re all a bunch of evolution deniers, then maybe this can set the record straight.

Dr. Thielen isn’t going to set the world on fire with this. It’s well written and well thought out. The title is going to intrigue some people and turn others off. If it turns you off, likely you’re not the target audience. You might go ahead and read it anyway. You’d be a step ahead of some of the one star reviewers on Amazon. You risk nothing by giving it a shot. It’s free and if you can read this blog without tearing out your hair then you can read this book.

What’s the Least I Can Believe? – A Review is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Friend and long time commenter Shawn Murphy aka Sidfaiwu answered that with a comment of his own.  He said, “What’s it about then? It often seems to be all about personal salvation.”  And he has a point.  Christians talk a lot about having a “personal relationship with Christ” and while Jesus may or may not be your homeboy, he is certainly described as your brother.  The question is, does it stop there? Is the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice to give you a relationship with him or to give you a ticket to Heaven?  Is that even the main event?

I think the answers are “No.”, “No.”, and “Maybe, maybe not.”

There are a number of things that Christ’s sacrifice are supposed to achieve.  Big picture things like the redemption of the whole of Creation would seem to dwarf concerns about an individual.  Now I don’t want to downplay that individual’s salvation.  I think that would be an easy over-reaction.  But once you’re saved, then what?  You still have a part to play.  You have responsibilities.  You are called to be good, righteous, and holy.  I hear that a lot from a lot of brothers and sisters.  The question then becomes, why?  Why do we do these good works?  What purpose do they serve?

Based on what I’m told in answer to this question, it seems that they’re  proof that your saved  and/or a good witness to others so that they can be saved (“He’s just so good and so righteous, I’ve gotta get me some of what he’s having.”).  So be saved so that you can do good works so that others know you’re saved so they can be saved (seems a bit circular to me, though not untrue).  I think that’s thinking too small though.  Don’t get me wrong.  I think the acts of love and kindness that are expected of the new creations of God certainly do those things.  They are a sign of your newness.  They do serve to inspire other people.  I just think it goes beyond that.

God will use you and your good works in the redemption of the world.  That’s a clear message in the Bible.  When most people think of that redemption though, it’s a sort of hazy future.  The works that we do, the ones incidentally that the Bible says we’re made for, will be refined and outlive this temporary body.  Wright believes, tough he admits to not knowing the details that these good works will continue to resonate in the new Earth.  It’s all part of God’s ultimate plan, though perhaps a part that’s not widely understood.  I think that’s perfectly valid.  Again though, there’s more to it.  Good works as a result of our salvation are also important in the here and now.

We have a hope that this body of believers, this holy temple, will bring justice and peace to the world.  The phrase “social justice” has gotten a fair  amount of play in certain circles lately.  To some people it sounds an awful lot like socialism.  It makes other folks uncomfortable because there’s a historical branch of liberal Christianity who played fast and loose with theology in an effort to make the social justice part of the faith of greater importance than the supernatural parts.  So I get the cringe that I felt run through some of you when you read the first sentence in this paragraph.

Still,  I believe that as a family we need to bring as much focus and attention on this part of what the gospel teaches as we do on our personal salvation.  While there are certainly excellent examples of where this has happened, I think there are also some excellent examples of where it hasn’t.  There is evidently plenty of opportunity for us as a body to improve.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people not only heard but saw this in action as much as they hear and see us talk about being free from the worry of hellfire?  Personally, I think it would go a long way in making us look and sound more like the Jesus of the Gospels.

A Ticket to Ride is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11

Time and again I have found the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 to be central to this discussion. This is indeed the exegetical firewall in existence that keeps individuals within the Reformed tradition from embracing paedocommunion, and in my judgment their particular perspective on 1 Corinthians 11 provides the only plausible exegetical argument against the practice. Were children participants at Passover? Without trouble, my Old Testament professor at RTS conceded that all the evidence points to the inclusion of even young children in the celebration of Old Testament sacrificial meals. Louis Berkhof’s passing assessment that children “were allowed to eat of the Passover in the days of the Old testament” (Systematic Theology, p. 656) goes largely uncontested within the Reformed community. Yet, in spite of these evidences, the working assumption is that 1 Corinthians 11 is the exegetical argument against the continuity between the covenant meals and the  inclusion of children in the New Covenant meal.

The traditional Reformed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 argues that by direct implication the apostle’s words bar young children from the table, due to their inability to “examine themselves,” “discern the body” and “proclaim the Lord’s death.” I have become convinced, however, that this chunk of Paul’s writing simply does not sustain the weight placed on it in seeking to refute the paedocommunionist argument. My reasoning is four-fold:

1. I do not believe it is the apostle’s intention to lay out terms of admission to the Table, but to deal with the behavior of those who have already been admitted to the Table. While the traditional understanding is that when Paul speaks of the necessity of self-examination he intends to exclude from the Table those who do not possess a substantial level of mental or spiritual maturity, this understanding fails to see that this call for self-examination is issued explicitly to those guilty of openly schismatic behavior in general and at the Table in particular. (His concern is that “there are divisions among you” – v. 18.) This sin had reached scandalous proportions, which is made obvious by Paul’s opening words: “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). It is, then, in the context of this behavior, and specifically with the guilty perpetrators in mind that Paul says “let a person examine himself.” My conclusion is that he is thereby calling his readers to stop and consider whether they themselves are guilty of the kind of sin which he has named before coming again to the Table, and to repent of it, or else they will profane the Table further. With this in mind, it is clear that the very youngest members of the congregation are not even in view in Paul’s exhortation. (See 1 Thess. 3:10 for another example of this limitation of scope.)

2. In a similar way, when Paul speaks of “discerning the Lord’s body,” rather than implicitly setting a minimum age of admission to the Table, I believe he is simply calling for a loving and considerate attitude towards others with whom one fellowships at the Table. The Corinthians had been guilty of a blatant disregard towards others in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and here the apostle calls this sin a failure to “discern the body”: i.e. a failure to consider one another in love as they partook together.  A growing number of commentators today see this reference not as the physical body of Christ, but as his body, the church. They note that Paul has already used this expression to the church in 10:17 where he states, “we who are many are one body.” For example, F.F. Bruce writes:

“To eat and drink ‘without discerning the body’ meant quite simply to take the bread and cup at the same time as they were treating their fellow-Christians uncharitably in thought and behavior.” (Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 285)

Even little children are capable of considering one another in love, and of avoiding uncharitable     behavior towards others. Of course, children at some point are also capable of eating and drinking     judgment to themselves: not, however, due to sheer immaturity of understanding, but due, again, to     patterns of sinful behavior which make a mockery of the Table.

3. I believe that withholding the Table from our children in order to spare them from “eating and drinking judgment to themselves” not only misunderstands Paul’s meaning in the text, but also fails to take into account the broader realities of the covenant membership of our children. The reality of covenant membership of our children means that, from infancy, every means of grace they are exposed to will result either in their spiritual blessing or condemnation. By their enjoyment of every privilege of the covenant – whether that of Baptism, the biblical instruction of parents, the fellowship of the saints, the participation in corporate worship, or the celebration of the Lord’s Supper – covenant children, like all members of the covenant, receive either covenant blessing or eventual covenant curse according to whether or not they respond to those privileges with faith. It is unwarranted because I do not believe it is the Session’s prerogative to attempt to spare members of the covenant from the judgment God has promised upon covenant unfaithfulness. It is futile because it fails to see the countless ways in which covenant children, like the covenant community in Jesus’ day, are rendered more accountable for their sins than the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, unless they repent. (see Matthew 11:20-24)

4. Finally, it is obvious that the great sin of the Corinthian church consisted in a disregard for each other that, in effect, led to excluding certain members of the church from partaking of the Table: that is, those who had nothing to eat. It’s rather ironic, then, that the Church has appealed to this text in support of the common practice today of excluding certain members  of the church from the Table.

Conclusion:

I am optimistic about the future of paedocommunion within the Reformed community, yet I also remain content to submit to the authority of a non-paedocommunion church that is cordial towards the open discussion of this, and frankly all, theological quandaries. I am optimistic because even among those who do not call themselves paedocommunionists, there is an increasing willingness to lower the requisite age of a child’s profession of faith and admission to the Table from what it has traditionally been. I am content, however, because I do not regard this issue as one worthy of starting a fight over. I strive to be committed to pursuing the peace of the Church, with the hopes that the traditional practice will one day be amended as part of the ongoing Reformation of the Church.

Communion for Kids – Part 3 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Observations regarding the historical record of the practice

I have not performed an exhaustive study of the historical record of the practice of paedocommunion. There is an excellent summary of historical material on the topic available for review at http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html . However, I have several opinions that have taken shape in my mind about what has contributed to this consensus against paedocommunion:

1. The Reformers were typically confronted with these arguments, not by fellow paedobaptists who sought to be consistent in their covenant theology, but rather by Anabaptist detractors who primarily sought leverage against the doctrine of infant baptism. I fear this goes a long way towards explaining why they were so dismissive of points made, often failing to give what I regard to be any substantial rationale for the traditional practice.

2. Historically, the consideration of these points within the Reformed tradition has been partly obscured by the larger theological battles being waged over the Lord’s Supper. For instance, the question of the nature of Christ’s presence in the supper came to focus largely on the question of whether the unbeliever who received the elements also partook of the flesh and blood of Christ. Calvin and the Reformed tradition answered, “No, Christ is only received at the Table by faith,” while Luther and Rome answered, “Yes, otherwise there is no integrity to the sacrament.” It seems obvious, particularly from reading Calvin, that the language of 1 Corinthians 11 was repeatedly pressed into use for this particular debate as if these words were addressing that specific issue of unbelievers at the Table. Yet in my estimation, Paul nowhere suggests that the unworthy partaking of the Table is due to the unregenerate state of certain members of the Corinthian church. In fact, he presumes that even the worst offenders among them are regenerate people as he identifies the Lord’s judgment upon them as a means of preserving them from being condemned with the world. (v. 32)

3. One other incredible obstacle in Reformed church history to a paedocommunionist perspective, particularly among Presbyterians, has been the misplaced emphasis by many (most?) of the Puritans on a covenant child’s public profession of faith as a means of preserving experiential religion – and even the purity of the Church. I am of the opinion that in their zeal to combat nominalism in the Church and to hold out the necessity of “true conversion,” many of them found it hard to resist making admittance to the Table the primary means of ensuring a regenerate church membership. However, it is teaching, rather than the administration of the sacraments, that is the primary pastoral means of combating nominalism in the church. The administration of sacraments in the New Testament does not seem to be constrained by concerns to avoid nominalism, especially as I think of the near immediate access to the sacraments granted to those who simply professed faith.

In the next entry I hope to dive face-first into the primary concern for those following traditional reformed practice. Some of my biggest appreciation for the reformed tradition is found in the desire to interact with the text we claim as authoritative in a honest, open and consistent manner. The true benefit of this is frequently found in a willingness to discuss and genuinely explore, seeking continuation of the reformation.

Communion for Kids – Part 2 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The biggest difficulty I find in writing a piece like this is the same difficulty with any writing: consideration of the audience. This was initially written for a number of individuals already thinking and operating within Reformed practice, although, thankfully, labels have a hard time sticking with these folks. Its very likely that I am making some gigantic assumptions that need further unpacking – preference of a philosophical model, knowledge of assorted particulars within church history, understanding of covenant theology, familiarity with past and present church practice of reformed churches – but in spite of that, I’m willing to put this out if for nothing else than a catalyst for good conversation. I am very appreciative to Scott for providing the space for publication and the editorial advice – sage writing wisdom at it’s best.

I have come to embrace the position commonly known as paedocommunion. I accept this label, however, with some reservations about the term. I do not embrace such a doctrine of “infant communion”. I hold to what could be called “young child communion.” Notwithstanding, I am in agreement with all so-called paedocommunionists in humbly insisting that the Reformed churches have erred in delaying the admittance of covenant children to the Table until they “are of years and ability to examine themselves.” I am comfortable with the label and thereby identify myself as one member of a class, loosely defined, of “paedocommunionists.” In what follows, I hope to summarize what has persuaded me to embrace the position I was once content to oppose. I do not intend to provide a comprehensive defense of paedocommunion. There is already existing and thorough writing towards this end, particularly in the 1988 majority report of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s committee to study paedocommunion, primarily authored by G.I. Williamson, and more recently in Tim Gallant’s book “Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children” and “The Case for Covenant Communion,” edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Rather, I intend to briefly highlight a selection of points, seeking to demonstrate what has led me in particular to this perspective. We’ll chase these down under three headings: 1. The role of the sacraments in the life of the church, 2. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, and 3. Observations regarding the historical record.

The role of the sacraments in the life of the church

My orthodoxy has been preserved by one iteration or another of the Reformed faith. I will readily admit that it was God’s providence that preserved me, but the means by which he did has been through the many shapes, sizes and various streams within the Reformed pale. Through this, I have an ever-increasing appreciation for the Reformed view of the nature and function of the sacraments in the life of the Church. I simply affirm the description in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the sacraments are:

“holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word” (WCF 27:1, emphasis added)

While I affirm this, I also have no problem asserting that it is a regrettable inconsistency in the Westminster Standards that the sacraments are together spoken of as marking out the visible church, yet the sacrament of the Lord’s Table is withheld from certain members of the visible church as “unworthy receivers” until they reach “years and ability to examine themselves” (Westminster Larger Catechism #177). The traditional perspective asserts that for those children their baptism alone is sufficient mark of membership, yet it seems to me that this statement of the Confession – that the sacraments considered together provide the mark of membership – finds plenty of proof in the obvious case of excommunicated persons. While I am not trying to say that we are treating our baptized children as apostate by denying them the supper, it is obvious that while excommunicated persons are still baptized persons, they are not counted as members of the church due to having been barred from the Table. Through this, I find it to be true that not only are both sacraments essential in defining the boundaries of the church, but that, if anything, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has the primary role in this identification.

The simple and straightforward argument made by paedocommunionists that the signs and seals of the covenant are to be received by the members of the covenant is an insurmountable one.

I do believe it is a misuse of the Lord’s Supper to impose it upon a passive recipient, whether it be an infant or an adult. While baptism is administered to those who are passive in order to represent God’s sovereign initiation and establishment of the covenant, the Lord’s Supper, as the sacrament of continuation with that covenant, is rightly administered only to those who are active in order to represent in part the response of God’s people to his covenant. However, I do not believe these differing designs of the sacraments can justify the traditional practice of withholding the sacrament of covenant response and communion from children until they are able to make an articulate profession of faith and undergo the ordeal of taking vows before a congregation.

In both the church and the home, we should rightly call for faithful covenant response from the children of the covenant from the very earliest days of their comprehension and self-initiative. We rightly teach them to pray even as they learn how to talk, we rightly encourage them to sing praises as soon as they can carry a tune (and sometimes even before), and we rightly teach them to actively participate in the worship of God from the very early days of their inclusion in it. Likewise, I believe we would be correct to allow them to take part in the Lord’s Table at as early a time as they actively can do so. While this certainly presumes some space of time between their passively receiving baptism and their actively partaking of the Lord’s Supper, it is far from the present practice of many of barring our children from the Table until many years after they have, in fact, expressed their covenant response to God’s love in a plethora of ways. As Passover was and the other elements of worship are, the Lord’s Supper should be a vehicle for their expression of love to Christ from the very beginning of their days of self-expression.

Communion for Kids? – Part One is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’ll weigh in after I get some comments.

Final Destination is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Gal. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

The associate pastor that gave the sermon did some research and determined that the word “goodness” can also be translated as generosity or beneficial acts towards others. He went on to stress that we as a body should be focused on sacrificial giving towards others. That gift could be monetary or one of time or abilities that you use for their benefit. Whatever form it takes, he went on to say that it should be characterized by a passage from Hebrews chapter ten.

32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

This sermon was especially relevant in the face of a video I had just watched on Saturday. Zach Ricks, good friend, co-author, and editor of Flagship, gave a talk at a Tea Party rally recently and posted the Youtube video. The whole thing got mashed up in my brain and I need to get it out on “paper”. So watch these videos (they’re short) and think with me on this.

Now, Zach and I don’t agree on much politically. I suspect we also differ on a number of theological issues, though nothing either of us would consider critical. But, as he says in the video, we should be able to discuss that. I won’t pick apart everything I disagree with in the videos. That’s not the point of this post. The point isn’t even to pick apart the “on topic” things I disagree with. The point is, given the notion that at least a significant portion of Tea Party folks are Christian and that that’s part of their platform, I want to look at some of the claims that at least Zach makes and see if they line up with this notion of sacrificial generosity.

At about the six minute mark in video one he quotes Calvin Coolidge. “Our great hope lies in developing what is good.” and then he goes on to say, “America is good”. Now I’m not going to say that America is bad. We have many, many good qualities. The questions is, if we are good, what does that mean?

Zach says that there is no country that compares to us militarily, scientifically, culturally, or economically. I’m not sure what grounds he’s using to make those statements and they seem to be a little subjective and as such are arguable. In any case, does that make us good? He also says that we don’t conquer our neighbors. That may be true at present, but wasn’t true when we first came here. Again though, while that may be true, does that make us good?

Zach says that God “is the center of my life.” Laudable, commendable in a brother and I don’t doubt that he means it. He then goes on to say that without religion there can be no virtue. Here he is referencing Dr. Benjamin Rush. God isn’t (and I’d argue shouldn’t be) the center of America’s life. It sounds like Zach thinks he should be. I think that a God, perhaps even the God that I believe in, is the center of many American’s lives. Assuming for the moment that God even could be the center of a country’s life, how would it look? Well, if goodness/generosity is a fruit of the spirit then that would be a part of what we would need to express in order to be a good, Godly nation.

The notion of letting someone pick one’s self up, he says in the second video, is an American virtue. We can’t guarantee equal outcomes. It’s up to us as individuals to figure out that course which will give us a state of comfortable subsistence. All of that is true, as far as it goes. None of that really sounds like generosity though. It sounds like rugged individualism (not necessarily a bad thing by itself) and not at all like having the giving and generous nature that God wants for us.

He goes on to say that the government can’t force us to be charitable. Charity comes from the heart. Forced charity equals theft. That’s all very true (except for maybe the last part which is arguable) and here’s where our goodness is put to the test. If government does take from us that which is “rightfully ours” what do we do? Do we joyfully accept the confiscation of our property and move on in a spirit of generosity? Or do we complain that we’re being dealt an injustice? (Please be aware that I don’t think that all the folks that were at this rally, Zach included, are “complainers” or aren’t generous.)

I suppose one could do both. It’s well within one’s rights as a citizen to protest bad taxes. Still I think any given generation had a significant portion of the populous (probably in any given country) that felt wronged by how the government spent “their” taxes. The question becomes, what do we as Christians do when that happens?

In the face of this, Zach says, “we are a giving people”. He goes on to say, “we give more as a percentage of GDP than any other country”. If that’s true (and the stats I’ve found don’t entirely back that up), is that alone enough to make us “good”?

As a nation we’ve done great things. We are certainly not, as some on the left have said, evil. Though, it should also be said, we have done and continue to do evil things. As individuals the Americans I know are, in general, “good” people, in the sense that they care about others and in the world’s eyes at least they could be a lot worse.

We all sin though and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is a Christian doctrine that I have no problem affirming. Given that, I’d be hard pressed to say that as a country, we’re “good”. I don’t think that’s something any one of us as citizens should take personally. I just think that we should be careful going about and telling others how good we are as a country, without something a little more solid to back it up.

Are We Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There are so many problems here that it might be easier to just start with what they have right. I will agree that there are certainly issues with the most popular translation, the NIV.  The primary issue, as I understand it, comes from the effort on the part of the translators to make it easier to understand and in trying to communicate what they believe that the original authors intended they did what is commonly called a “thought for thought” translation.  Other translations including the English Standard Version use a “word for word” approach.

A thought for thought approach, while commendable, has resulted in what many people consider to be a weaker translation theologiclaly speaking.  That by no means indicates that it is insufficient or unusable, but if what you’re looking for is something closer to the oldest manuscripts we have then you want to look elsewhere.  So if their goal is to make a more accurate translation (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then that’s commendable.  It’s already been done, but hey what’s one more translation, right?  Wrong.

If I were to take what they wrote at face value then it seems that they don’t want to do a translation at all.  If they are indeed “retranslating the KJV into modern English” then it’s really more of a paraphrase since translation implies moving from the original language into a different language.  Besides, if they just want that then there’s always the New King James Version which is essentially the KJV updated to modern English.  It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV but notes where other manuscripts differ.

But no, what they want to do here is take their political agenda and use “translation” to hammer God’s word into a shape that they find acceptable.  I’m really not okay with that.  Now I recognize that everyone on God’s green Earth has an agenda and that anyone who enters the field of translation is going to carry with them some sort of baggage.  We’re all human beings here.  The problem I have with this particular agenda is that it’s got nothing to do with trying to mine the word of God and divine what he is trying to say to us and everything to do with shaping the word of God to make something politically acceptable.

Let’s look at this point by point:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias - No what they want is a paraphrase of a translation acceptable to their constituents that’s corrupted by conservative bias.  That’s better somehow?  Oh and they admit that newer translations use more accurate manuscripts.
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity - I’d need some clarification here.  I’m aware of some translations that use more gender neutral terms to refer to God.  If that’s what they’re referring to then I might be okay with sticking strictly to the original language.  However, that’s got nothing to do with thinking that God is some big dude in the sky.  God is a spirit and possesses no gender, but chose to reveal himself in the masculine for specific reasons and hey why not stick with that?
   
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV^[3] is written at only the 7th grade level - So tempted to make a comment here about their target audience, but it’s not nice and not entirely true.  Instead I’ll just say that the NIV isn’t “written” at a certain grade level it’s translated and tool might place it at a certain grade level.  So what?  The KJV uses fewer English words and is only more challenging to read due to archaic language.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”. – Language certainly evolves over  time.  Both the left and the right have “co-opted” language for their own arguments.  Still I’d like to know what the old meaning of peace is and what new “conservative” word they would use in its place.  This has got 1984 written all over it.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census- In the OT casting lots wasn’t gambling, it was used as a divining tool by prophets.  Non-believers may still believe that it works out to be the same, but these guys don’t know what they’re talking about.
   
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. - It’s nice of them to admit that conservatives are more interested in using guilt to push our buttons and get us in line.  The focus of the Bible is and always has been more about communion with God and what that means that about what being cast out is like.  The NT mentions Heaven ten times more often than Hell.  Hell should not be our focus.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning- Honestly, I don’t know what to even say here except that these people, the ones who were living during biblical times didn’t have a free market as we understand it.  Jesus wasn’t teaching an economic model and if he were?  Our current model wouldn’t be it.
   
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story- This is wrong on a number of levels.  I mean okay let’s assume that Jesus didn’t say “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”, the idea of forgiveness and grace and that we are ALL sinners is pretty…. clear given the rest of God’s word.  They’re annoyed that “liberals” are using this as an anti-death penalty screed.  Guess what?  They’re wrong too.  Not the point of this passage.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels - No idea what to say here that wouldn’t be ad hominem.
   
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.” – Okay so first they say that the liberal version is dumbed down.  Then this.  Make up your friggin’ mind people.

The rest of that page frankly just pisses me off. The whole idea is ridiculous on its face and does NOTHING, accomplishes NOTHING more than adding fuel to the notion that Christians are just a bunch of morons that want to use the Bible to accomplish some right-wing agenda. Are their Christians like that? Sure. Not all, or I hope and pray even most.

Okay that’s enough for now. I need to take my blood pressure meds.

Conservative Bible Project is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Young Earth Creationists typically believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and put the Earth/universe at somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years old. Typically they believe that if evolution played any role at all it was minimal. Old Earth Creationists believe in a more figurative/metaphorical interpretation of Genesis and hold that the Earth/universe is somewhere between really freakin’ old and the current number of years held by science to be true. They also hold that evolution is true though perhaps guided by God to some degree.

I’m trying to figure out where I am in all of this, but more on that later.

The answers I got are as follows:

benfraley @spiritualtramp c) Other. Not a ‘fall on my sword’ issue for me. There’s an arguement to make for both sides.

Rasplundjr @spiritualtramp Weird combo creationist evolutionist…. or umm C) Other

madpoet @spiritualtramp b) I think “days” as used in Genesis does not mean 24 hour periods.

squirleywrath @spiritualtramp a

etherius @spiritualtramp Theistic Evolutionist. God wrote the “software” & the material universe is hardware running the program via natural laws.

salguod_net @spiritualtramp I’d say I’m an Old Earth Creationist with Young Earth Sympathies.

Chivalrybean @spiritualtramp I’m going to say A, assuming I understand the terms.

JADEDVisalian @spiritualtramp C wasn’t there (job 38)

odin1eye @spiritualtramp hmmm… Guess I’d probably say young earth. Haven’t studied that aspect enough. If wrong, wouldn’t effect rest belief sys

theOJG @spiritualtramp A. But I lean towards C because of Proverbs 25:2

jasonfaylen @spiritualtramp Not surprisingly, I was raised as an IFB to believe the Creation account found in Genesis, presumeably about 10k yrs ago and so far, I’ve found no reason to change my view.

So that’s five for a young Earth, two solid old Earthers, and three C’s mostly due to positions I myself hold. I also took a poll among the teachers at my church and the answers I got were similarly spread out, though my denomination (Presbyterian) skews toward a young earth it seems.

This whole thing coincided with the beginning of a period of my pastor preaching through the book of Genesis. He started on Sunday with the first two verses of chapter one and we’ll proceed from there.

The interesting thing to me about the intro to the sermon was that Hunter (our pastor) couched the current scientific theories in addition to all of the creation myths out there as various genesis stories (I can hear panties/boxers bunching even as I type these words). I think that there’s some meat there to chew on. He, of course, went on to say that the story we have is the true one (no idea yet as to how literally he’s going to interpret the forthcoming passages), but then isn’t that what everyone believes that has there own genesis story?

“But Scott,” I hear some of you say, “we have science on our side. Surely any rational person would put more trust in that than in the Bronze Age poetry/myth whose origins are questionable at best?” And to a point I might agree with you. The intention of first few chapters of Genesis, in my opinion, was not to establish how old the Earth is or how long it took to come into being. However, I think what this really comes down to can be best talked about in terms that a movie we’re all familiar with uses:

Admiral Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Darth Vader: Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Admiral Motti: Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels’ hidden fortress…
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

No, no, no, this doesn’t reveal my secret desire to Force choke pesky naturalists or even pesky young earthers. Well maybe a little…

Anyway, I think for most people who are naturalists what science tells them about the creation of the universe serves the same purpose as the various religious genesis stories tell religious folks. It gives them a sense of the scope of the universe and an idea that how things got here involves order and forces that most of us frankly don’t comprehend in the slightest. The rest, those on the extreme science-y side and those on the extreme religious-y side are like Motti and Vader, proud of their knowledge and the power that it gives them. Not to mention, at each other’s throats.

I think that seeking the answers about the beginnings of the universe through science alone is admirable and very useful. I think the same about seeking those same answers through religious means. The two schools of thought are frequently going to arrive at different sorts of answers. That’s as it should be given the fact that they are vastly different disciplines, though the answers aren’t always going to be contradictory.

Christians as early as the third century believed that the creation story was less than literal. Believers are and have been involved in science that gives us many of the current theories putting the Earth’s age at 4.54 billion years. Unfortunately there are people who try and shoehorn their religious views into their scientific understanding or perhaps that’s vice versa. I think that’s a mistake. It can lead to bad science and bad religion.

There are also those who look down their noses at the religious among us, holding to our own genesis stories and trying to seek some deeper meaning in the existence of our universe. I think that’s also a mistake. At the very best it keeps folks from even trying to understand your point of view. No one likes to be belittled. You may also be missing some of the deeper discussions that can be had regarding who we are and what our place in the universe is, answers that “hard” science isn’t really set up to provide.

I guess all of that goes to say that I believe that science as it stands gives us a better hint as to how old the universe is. I find it interesting that the number, though large, strives so hard to be precise. I also believe that religion provides some answers about origins. I see an order in the universe that speaks to me of a creator. Christianity tells us what that creator could be (and in my mind is) like. Is that creator “necessary”? That’s a worthy question and one that I don’t think either discipline can provide a clear answer to. It’s those sorts of arguments that I would rather be focusing on.

Creation Stories is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.