Translation

Just watched the segment on "Morning Joe" regarding the divinity of doubt. This is also an interesting discussion in light of newer translations of the Bible this week changing the translation of Issiah's reference to the "virgin" being born. What this lawyer didn't mention (and maybe he did not know) is that the NT writers for the most part, did not have access to the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew. The most prominent scriptures available (and most scholars from a wide swath of convictions demonstrate this) were the Greek Scriptures, otherwise noted as the Septuagint (LXX). In this version, the word employed is, "parthenos." I looked it up in Bauer & Gingrich (a standard Greek-English Lexicon), and the English equivalent is, "virgin" (p. 632) It is used in wider Greek literature as well with this meaning. Philo and Josephus use it in this way. It is also used for men. So, when the writers of the LXX addressed this text, they went with the sexual connoted use of the term. This version predates Christianity by about 400 yrs or so. So, if this lawyer had really done his homework (or perhaps he did it in the book and didn't have time to express it on the set), he would've addressed the use of the LXX in the writings of the NT.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rejoined!

Well, I am trying to pick this up again. I hope as I discover more and more out there of interest, at least to my small mind, I can post it here. I hope this can be a resource for those traversing the highways and byways of our digital age. I hope to make less commentary and let the "parties" speak for themselves. One of the greatest challenges in the macro and micro environments of today remains our capacity to correctly (or accurately) represent those with whom we disagree most passionately. My hope here, as part of the graceformational journey of life, will focus on providing a place of information. After all, part of transformation requires information. So....stay tuned as I return to my "post." -- John

Christian America?

Is it? Was it ever? I resonate with this discussion because there is this sense among many of us that this nation is a divinely appointed nation to be a light to the world. I do not doubt that some who came over early on to this land believed this, the "wilderness experiment." What tends to follow from this is a kind of line which reads, "If we are ever going to become the greatest nation, the blessed nation, we must get back to our roots, to our Christian roots." The assumption is dangerous. And, as has been pointed out elsewhere (see Marsden et al, The Search for a Christian America and Greg Boyd's, The Myth of a Christian Nation), our nostalgia of that may be just that. So, check out the 12 minute discussion below!

Later!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ortberg Strikes Again

Anyone who knows me, knows that John Ortberg serves as one of the most influential humans in my life. I have enjoyed his preaching for years, his ability to meld both theology and the underlying psychology together in a way that doesn't violate both.

I just read his article, Your Hidden Curriculum. It is precisely what I wish I could say in the way he has written it. This addresses part of the underlying stuff that goes on in ecclesiastical cultures. We must be willing to address these, to examine these. In fact, an unwillingness to examine these probably serves as one of the greatest indicators that fear dominates the culture. I find more and more that ecclesiastical cultures tend to operate more from fear than we are led to admit. Our formal curriculum may declare the opposite. Again, the more we confess how free we are of fear may indicate how much fear does dominate.

So, read the article, look at his questions posed at the end, and give prayerful reflective thought of how your religious organization honestly answers the questions. And know...He is strong!

Until...

Evangelistic Metrics

As Hiebert describes the Colonial period of mission service, one descriptor stands out:

"They measured communication by what they said, not by what people heard."

Wow! What if we changed the metric? What if our "evangelism" (here the word is used largely in the sense of communicating with words) was measured not by the content of what is presented (though this is important) but by what is heard? What if we decided to see what people were "hearing" from Christians? This appears to be what Kinnaman seeks to reveal in his book, Unchristian.

So, here is a question for us as we seek to share the good news: What are people around the world, in various places and during various times, what are they hearing from us? What are the affective as well as cognitive "hearings" they detect?

Until next time...

New Book

I have dived in as well to Paul Hiebert's work, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. I find his work informative. People who serve overseas as missionaries are required to enter an intense training before arriving. Yet, for those of us in North America, how much "training" is their for our mission here? Yes, we grew up here. Yes, we very familiar with our "culture," maybe too familiar. Or are we?

Hiebert takes a look at missions through the eyes of anthropology, identifying historically how we have, in many cases, brought not only the gospel, but our culture as well--unable to separate the two. He identifies shifts in the approach to mission over the years. There are three:

1. Colonialism
2. Anticolonialism
3. Globalism

In each, through a filter of four (Missions, Anthropology, Theology, and Epistemology), he identifies 24 elements for consideration. These consist of things like the way other religions are viewed, what is the need addressed during each shift, and the attitude of the missionary toward the indigenous people.

As I continue the pursuit of my project, I can't help but think this may provide a way through to a new creation of some kind. Stay tuned.

Until next time...

Inequitable vs. Equitable

Can you say, "AIG?" Nielsen's work reveals that organizations rank-based produce a serious imbalance in the way rewards are distributed. Notice his observation:

"Rank-based: Those higher in rank are entitled to a far greater share of the organization's resources in the form of compensation than those lower in rank."
"Peer-based: Distributing the organization's resources more equitably in the organization will generate far greater returns to everyone in the long run."

It is easy to demonize others as unequal distributive but the question might be asked, "Are there ways we unequally distribute other sources of power, other symbols of success?" What are those resources? What are the symbols of success that may get unequally distributive? Perhaps in our world today, event in local congregations, the most significant resource is information and yet, that information is distributed unequally.

Give it some prayerful reflection...until next time.