In Part One we tried to define Christian small groups and began to explore some of the reasons why small groups in our churches should be regarded as a positive benefit. In this second Part we continue by looking at a number of other good reasons for having small groups.
Reason 7: Building One Another Up
In 1 Thessalonians 5:11, the apostle Paul instructs Christians as follows: "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
One of the benefits of close fellowship is that it gives more opportunities to get alongside one another to give that personal word of encouragement or support to build another Christian up in their faith and walk with Jesus.
In many churches very little time is spent actually talking with each other. How often do we rush into the church, take our seats, sit without engaging with anyone around us other than to say a quick "Good morning" or "Good evening" and then head off after maybe another brief chat with one or two people at the end.
Even when we do have a longer conversation, how often do we actually communicate at a serious personal level where encouragement can be given? Not very often in my experience, but then I may be as guilty as anyone of failing in this.
The point is that small groups create relationships which are close and relaxed enough to actually do what Paul calls on Christians to do with each other.
Reason 8: Conducive to Bible Study
Small groups are very conducive to Bible study and to grappling with the message and challenges of Scripture. One of the things about studying the Bible together in small groups is that it allows group Bible study in an interactive, discussion-based learning atmosphere.
Traditional teaching in the church in a sermon or large group Bible study is essentially a monologue, more-or-less a lecture-based format where one speaker talks and the group or congregation listens. Although some modern teaching takes this traditional approach in schools, colleges and universities, the truth is that many teachers realise that this approach is not the only way to teach, and for some people, a more effective method of learning consists in dialogue and discussion rather than handing down knowledge from the pulpit or lectern. Anyone under 40 years of age is probably more familiar with a dialogue based learning approach, and many people nowadays find it difficult to imbibe knowledge from a long monologue.
Jesus' approach to teaching encompassed both sermons addressed to large gatherings (Matthew 5-7) and more intimate and interactive teaching sessions with his disciples (John 13-16) as well as people who wanted to question him and hear his answers (Mark 12).
It seems to me that our approaches to learning God's Word at the very least can and in all probability should include all of these kinds of teaching in our churches and I believe the teaching is enriched by having all methods going on together and complementing each other.
Reason 9: Aiding Growth to Christian Maturity
Many of the particular benefits in having small groups within our churches can be summarised in the general benefit of aiding growth towards spiritual maturity in the Christian life. As our knowledge of the Bible, prayer life, fellowship and so forth develops through involvement in a small group, so the overall aim of the Christian life - to grow and mature in Christ - is increased.
So, small groups help facilitate church growth not only in terms of numbers in evangelistic aims but in discipleship terms regarding Christian maturity.
Reason 10: Development of Future Leaders
A very practical and realistic benefit of small groups is in the training up and development of future leaders. Leading a small group gives an excellent opportunity for participants to "try their hand" at leading a Bible study, praying aloud, and so forth. It also allows group leaders to develop their talents in leadership, organisation, service, working with people, pastoral work, etc. as well as teaching and praying.
A leader in a small group may then have a better grounding and preparation for other work in the church whether in the eldership, ministry, mission field or in some other teaching or pastoral role within a congregation.
Reason 11: Flexibility
Having a number of small groups within a church provides a range of different nights and locations for Bible study, prayer and fellowship. Where a congregation has one large scale midweek meeting, inevitably this may not suit every member of the church due to work, family, other commitments, or for other personal reasons. Having only one meeting and few or no small groups is a kind of "all or nothing" approach, where, if a person cannot attend there is little or no opportunity to engage in these activities at all with others in the congregation.
Small groups meeting on different nights maximises the opportunity for members to take part in midweek Christian worship, Bible study, prayer and fellowship.
Another kind of flexibility is that small groups allow the level of teaching to be tailored better to where the group members are at in their Christian walk if this is considered desirable in certain circumstances by the church leadership.
Reason 12: The Biblical Example
Our final reason for having small groups within our churches is simple: small groups are a biblical practice!
To begin with, as we have already noted, Jesus himself met with his disciples in a small group setting. Although he would teach to larger gatherings, many times in the Gospels we find Jesus meeting privately with his disciples or sometimes other groups for more focused teaching and times of prayer or fellowship.
Secondly, the fact is that the apostolic churches founded in the New Testament were all essentially composed of small groups meeting in people's homes. For example if we read Romans 16, it is clear that though Paul was writing to the church in Rome, that church was itself made up of a number of different house churches that met in various houses in the city.
It seems as if the building blocks of the early church were small groups meeting in people's houses. The early church grew bottom up from small groups. Rather than breaking up a larger congregation into small groups, it looks as if the base unit was the small group, which linked together to form larger congregations in the various towns and cities of the Roman Empire which had churches. After all, the opportunities for large gatherings where small groups would get together were probably few and far between in apostolic times, especially once the church began to be persecuted and had to go "underground" during the reigns of Roman emperors like Nero.
This alone is enough to at least admit the validity of small groups in our present day churches. But more than simply acknowledging the validity of small groups, I believe when we look at all the points in their favour, we will actually want to encourage their introduction or support their development in our churches.
And if you are not already involved in a small group, perhaps the Lord is calling you to consider joining one, forming one or even leading one?
(Part Three of this series will follow soon with some personal reflections on my experience of small groups)
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
Saturday, 24 February 2018
Why our churches should have small groups (Part One)
What is a small group?
As I'm using the term, a "small group" is group of between around 5 and 15 church members (many experts say 8-12 members is the optimal number), which meets regularly (usually either weekly or fortnightly), normally in the home of one or more of the group (it is possible for a group to meet elsewhere). The purpose of a small group is to develop, grow and encourage Christian discipleship and fellowship in its members. Most small groups also aim to grow to the point where they can split into two groups when enough there are too many people for one group. For some groups this growth may be from within the body of disciples within a congregation while other small groups have an evangelistic aim, to draw people from outside the church into the group and the church as new believers and new disciples.
The core activities of the group are usually Bible study, discussion, prayer and fellowship, though group activities are often flexible enough to include social and recreational activities from time to time.
A typical small group meeting would last anywhere from approximately 2 to 3 hours and may take the following pattern (though this is very flexible):
Perhaps three to six times a year, groups sometimes vary this typical pattern or meet at a different time and may have more varied activities such as:
Why should our churches have small groups?
This is a very important question. Some people would argue that there is no need to have small groups within a congregation. Perhaps a few would even argue that small groups cause problems and should be avoided. These objections are not completely off the mark. It is possible for small groups to "go wrong" and cause problems, perhaps exposing members to false teaching, or leading to the formation of inward-looking cliques, or channelling energy away from other meetings or programmes in the congregation. Yet these problems are hardly unique to churches with small groups. The very same criticisms could accurately be levelled at churches with no small group structure in place at all!
More importantly, it simply does not follow that because something can be abused or done badly that it should not be done at all. If that were so, many a church's activities would have to be curtailed.
It is more objective to consider the advantages small groups can bring when done well. There are a number of points in favour of encouraging small groups within a church congregation, particularly if the congregation is larger than say 100 members (though this is hardly a baseline figure - small groups could give many of the following advantages even in smaller congregations).
Reason 1: Closer Relationships
Small groups are one of the best ways to help build closer relationships between members of a congregation. In the early church, believers shared their lives with each other in close fellowship (e.g. Acts 2:42). In large, modern congregations this is often difficult to achieve. Too often our churches are large groups of people who gather to hear a sermon, sing hymns and pray together, as if this were all that Jesus requires of the people of the Kingdom. Small groups of 6-12 people, particularly when meeting in the comfortable and familiar setting of members' homes, immediately create a more intimate atmosphere, and as the group meets and becomes more relaxed with each other so the Christian ideal of the church as the family-community of shared lives with God and with each other is more apt to flourish.
In a large church of over 200 members it is almost impossible to get to know everyone, and it is easy to just be an anonymous churchgoer and consumer of Bible teaching.
It has been pointed out that the number of inter-relationships in a group of people grows exponentially with the size of the group. With four people, A, B, C and D, there are no less than six interpersonal relationships: A-B, B-C, C-D, D-A, A-C, B-D. If we merely double that to a group of eight people, there are then no less than 28 interpersonal relationships possible and needing to be maintained if there is to be a "family dynamic" in the group. It is immediately apparent that in a church congregation of 100, 200, 300 or more people, it is simply impractical to maintain a close relationship between everyone in the many thousands of possible relationships that could potentially exist. As human beings we can only manage a certain number of close family-like relationships. We need smaller units of people to relate to. That is where small groups offer a tremendous advantage for encouraging close Christian fellowship.
Reason 2: Approachable to Outsiders
The days when most people attend a church even occasionally, such as for weddings, funerals and maybe a Christmas service are rapidly disappearing into history. For many people, especially among the under 30s, the church is an alien environment where people do strange, unfamiliar things like sing together, sit quietly or listen to an extended monologue from a speaker, and where much that goes on is not explained and hard to understand.
As we seek to reach others with the gospel against this background, small groups offer a great setting to meet, welcome and introduce enquirers to the Faith. The homely environment of someone's living room is much less "threatening" for many people than a church building, and a conversational discussion about the Bible is easier for many people to process than a half-hour sermon.
Many churches have found that small groups are an invaluable evangelistic tool that has led to significant growth in the congregation.
Reason 3: Pastoral Care
The idea being small groups is that they are more than a home Bible study or prayer group though they certainly are no less than that. By sharing their lives together, the members of a small group get to know each other closely, and get to know each others needs. Small groups can offer mutual pastoral support for the members.
The biblical model of pastoral support is not the minister doing everything. Neither is it the church elders or deacons doing all the pastoral work. The biblical model involves all members giving and receiving help as they are able and require it.
Small groups provide an excellent framework to enable the joy and privilege of ministering to other believers in practical ways.
Reason 4: Living Out the Faith
Pastoral care is only one way in which small groups can help facilitate the practical living out of the Christian faith, but there are many others. Many small groups work together to do evangelism, or charity fundraising, or be of practical service to the church or the local community.
The small group can provide a focal point that brings Christians together to live out their faith in ways that are difficult when Christians operate only on "solo missions" or where only the church as an amorphous whole is working but many individual members can get left behind.
Reason 5: Encouraging Prayer
One of the most important benefits that flow from the increased intimacy of a small group and the closeness of trust and fellowship between the members is that small groups create a comfortable atmosphere for prayer. For many Christians a Sunday service or even a larger prayer meeting does not allow either the time, the opportunity or the right atmosphere to share personal information and seek prayer support. A small group is in many respects a more natural environment to discuss our innermost needs.
Small groups can also prove effective in developing the prayer life of Christians who are not confident enough to pray aloud in a larger setting.
As well as praying for each other in the group, a good group leader will also make sure there is an outward aspect to the group's prayer life, praying for the wider needs of the church, the community and the world and will encourage all the members to participate in prayer.
Reason 6: Open and Honest Communication
One of the perceptions many people have of Christians and churches, rightly or wrongly, is that they are at best uncomfortable with questions and expressions of doubt or uncertainty and at worst judgmental of anyone who does not conform to the "official" line (whatever that is in each particular congregation).
By comparison, one of the strengths of a small group environment, is that it allows the development between members of a level of trust, support and mutual acceptance so that everyone can be completely honest about what they think and how they feel. Rather than closing down communication, the small group fosters openness and honesty. This is not only more healthy on a human level than any kind of repression of the truth, it is also more in line with how the Bible presents the openness and honesty of many of the heroes of the faith in their relationship even with God himself.
One of the wonderful things about salvation by grace through faith alone is that our acceptance with God is not dependent on us getting everything right in our beliefs or in our conduct. As has been said by Tom Wright and others, we are justified by believing in Christ, we are not justified by believing in justification by faith. According to the apostle Paul, this truth gives us a liberty of tremendous value that we should never fritter away.
In my view, when a small group gets to the point where the members realise they are accepted for who they are, not just by God but by the people in the room, even if they make mistakes, even if they don't get all the doctrines 100% accurate, then they are actually beginning to embody the very foundational truth which Luther and Calvin recognised lay at the very heart of the good news and was the doctrine by which the church stands or falls - that our acceptance is not based on anything in us, not even our doctrinal purity, but only, only, only on Christ and his redeeming work.
If that doesn't encourage us to be open and honest with each other, nothing will. The small group merely provides one of the most appropriate and fitting settings for it to take place.
(The second part of this paper will follow soon)
As I'm using the term, a "small group" is group of between around 5 and 15 church members (many experts say 8-12 members is the optimal number), which meets regularly (usually either weekly or fortnightly), normally in the home of one or more of the group (it is possible for a group to meet elsewhere). The purpose of a small group is to develop, grow and encourage Christian discipleship and fellowship in its members. Most small groups also aim to grow to the point where they can split into two groups when enough there are too many people for one group. For some groups this growth may be from within the body of disciples within a congregation while other small groups have an evangelistic aim, to draw people from outside the church into the group and the church as new believers and new disciples.
The core activities of the group are usually Bible study, discussion, prayer and fellowship, though group activities are often flexible enough to include social and recreational activities from time to time.
A typical small group meeting would last anywhere from approximately 2 to 3 hours and may take the following pattern (though this is very flexible):
- Welcome and catching-up with people
- Refreshments or a meal
- Bible study/discussion
- Prayer time
- Final chats and goodbyes
Perhaps three to six times a year, groups sometimes vary this typical pattern or meet at a different time and may have more varied activities such as:
- Watching an edifying film, documentary, discussion programme or debate and then using this as a basis for group discussion.
- Games nights
- Going on group outings such as the cinema, a concert or the theatre, going for a country walk, visiting a museum, going out for a meal together, etc.
- An evening of practical service to the larger congregation or community. This could be anything from DIY, cleaning or maintenance, through to evangelistic activities.
Why should our churches have small groups?
This is a very important question. Some people would argue that there is no need to have small groups within a congregation. Perhaps a few would even argue that small groups cause problems and should be avoided. These objections are not completely off the mark. It is possible for small groups to "go wrong" and cause problems, perhaps exposing members to false teaching, or leading to the formation of inward-looking cliques, or channelling energy away from other meetings or programmes in the congregation. Yet these problems are hardly unique to churches with small groups. The very same criticisms could accurately be levelled at churches with no small group structure in place at all!
More importantly, it simply does not follow that because something can be abused or done badly that it should not be done at all. If that were so, many a church's activities would have to be curtailed.
It is more objective to consider the advantages small groups can bring when done well. There are a number of points in favour of encouraging small groups within a church congregation, particularly if the congregation is larger than say 100 members (though this is hardly a baseline figure - small groups could give many of the following advantages even in smaller congregations).
Reason 1: Closer Relationships
Small groups are one of the best ways to help build closer relationships between members of a congregation. In the early church, believers shared their lives with each other in close fellowship (e.g. Acts 2:42). In large, modern congregations this is often difficult to achieve. Too often our churches are large groups of people who gather to hear a sermon, sing hymns and pray together, as if this were all that Jesus requires of the people of the Kingdom. Small groups of 6-12 people, particularly when meeting in the comfortable and familiar setting of members' homes, immediately create a more intimate atmosphere, and as the group meets and becomes more relaxed with each other so the Christian ideal of the church as the family-community of shared lives with God and with each other is more apt to flourish.
In a large church of over 200 members it is almost impossible to get to know everyone, and it is easy to just be an anonymous churchgoer and consumer of Bible teaching.
It has been pointed out that the number of inter-relationships in a group of people grows exponentially with the size of the group. With four people, A, B, C and D, there are no less than six interpersonal relationships: A-B, B-C, C-D, D-A, A-C, B-D. If we merely double that to a group of eight people, there are then no less than 28 interpersonal relationships possible and needing to be maintained if there is to be a "family dynamic" in the group. It is immediately apparent that in a church congregation of 100, 200, 300 or more people, it is simply impractical to maintain a close relationship between everyone in the many thousands of possible relationships that could potentially exist. As human beings we can only manage a certain number of close family-like relationships. We need smaller units of people to relate to. That is where small groups offer a tremendous advantage for encouraging close Christian fellowship.
Reason 2: Approachable to Outsiders
The days when most people attend a church even occasionally, such as for weddings, funerals and maybe a Christmas service are rapidly disappearing into history. For many people, especially among the under 30s, the church is an alien environment where people do strange, unfamiliar things like sing together, sit quietly or listen to an extended monologue from a speaker, and where much that goes on is not explained and hard to understand.
As we seek to reach others with the gospel against this background, small groups offer a great setting to meet, welcome and introduce enquirers to the Faith. The homely environment of someone's living room is much less "threatening" for many people than a church building, and a conversational discussion about the Bible is easier for many people to process than a half-hour sermon.
Many churches have found that small groups are an invaluable evangelistic tool that has led to significant growth in the congregation.
Reason 3: Pastoral Care
The idea being small groups is that they are more than a home Bible study or prayer group though they certainly are no less than that. By sharing their lives together, the members of a small group get to know each other closely, and get to know each others needs. Small groups can offer mutual pastoral support for the members.
The biblical model of pastoral support is not the minister doing everything. Neither is it the church elders or deacons doing all the pastoral work. The biblical model involves all members giving and receiving help as they are able and require it.
Small groups provide an excellent framework to enable the joy and privilege of ministering to other believers in practical ways.
Reason 4: Living Out the Faith
Pastoral care is only one way in which small groups can help facilitate the practical living out of the Christian faith, but there are many others. Many small groups work together to do evangelism, or charity fundraising, or be of practical service to the church or the local community.
The small group can provide a focal point that brings Christians together to live out their faith in ways that are difficult when Christians operate only on "solo missions" or where only the church as an amorphous whole is working but many individual members can get left behind.
Reason 5: Encouraging Prayer
One of the most important benefits that flow from the increased intimacy of a small group and the closeness of trust and fellowship between the members is that small groups create a comfortable atmosphere for prayer. For many Christians a Sunday service or even a larger prayer meeting does not allow either the time, the opportunity or the right atmosphere to share personal information and seek prayer support. A small group is in many respects a more natural environment to discuss our innermost needs.
Small groups can also prove effective in developing the prayer life of Christians who are not confident enough to pray aloud in a larger setting.
As well as praying for each other in the group, a good group leader will also make sure there is an outward aspect to the group's prayer life, praying for the wider needs of the church, the community and the world and will encourage all the members to participate in prayer.
Reason 6: Open and Honest Communication
One of the perceptions many people have of Christians and churches, rightly or wrongly, is that they are at best uncomfortable with questions and expressions of doubt or uncertainty and at worst judgmental of anyone who does not conform to the "official" line (whatever that is in each particular congregation).
By comparison, one of the strengths of a small group environment, is that it allows the development between members of a level of trust, support and mutual acceptance so that everyone can be completely honest about what they think and how they feel. Rather than closing down communication, the small group fosters openness and honesty. This is not only more healthy on a human level than any kind of repression of the truth, it is also more in line with how the Bible presents the openness and honesty of many of the heroes of the faith in their relationship even with God himself.
One of the wonderful things about salvation by grace through faith alone is that our acceptance with God is not dependent on us getting everything right in our beliefs or in our conduct. As has been said by Tom Wright and others, we are justified by believing in Christ, we are not justified by believing in justification by faith. According to the apostle Paul, this truth gives us a liberty of tremendous value that we should never fritter away.
In my view, when a small group gets to the point where the members realise they are accepted for who they are, not just by God but by the people in the room, even if they make mistakes, even if they don't get all the doctrines 100% accurate, then they are actually beginning to embody the very foundational truth which Luther and Calvin recognised lay at the very heart of the good news and was the doctrine by which the church stands or falls - that our acceptance is not based on anything in us, not even our doctrinal purity, but only, only, only on Christ and his redeeming work.
If that doesn't encourage us to be open and honest with each other, nothing will. The small group merely provides one of the most appropriate and fitting settings for it to take place.
(The second part of this paper will follow soon)
Monday, 19 February 2018
Grasping God's Word
The process of interpreting and grasping the Bible is similar to embarking on a journey that consists in a series of steps.
The journey begins in the world of the Bible and the original audience of the passage being studied and ends in our world and our life as we apply the message to our own situation.
Step 1: Grasping the Text in Their Town
Question: What did the text mean to the biblical audience?
Read carefully and observe to see as much as possible in the text. Try to summarise what the passage meant to the original audience in one or two sentences.
Step 2: Measuring the Width of the River to Cross
Question: What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?
Some of the differences to consider will be: time, language, culture, situation and whether in the Old Testament (covenant) or New Testament (covenant). Look at this stage to find rather than minimize differences.
Remember for some passages, the river will be wider than for others.
Step 3: Crossing the Principlizing Bridge
Question: What is the theological principle in this text?
This is most difficult step. Find the theological principle or principles in the text. These principles should be generated from the text and not be brought to the text by us. What is the message of the passage that comes across the river of time, culture, situation etc?
The principle must be related to the meaning found in Step 1. In what ways are we the same as the original audience, despite the differences between us?
The principle should be:
Step 4: Grasping the Text in Our Town
Question: How should individual Christians today apply the theological principle in their lives?
This step is about exploring how the principle(s) we have identified apply to the church and our lives today.
What are the implications of the principle identified for what we believe as Christians? What our church should be like? How we should think and act as followers of Jesus?
__
The method of Bible study described here is taken from the very helpful book, Grasping God's Word, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hayes. Much more detail on this approach to Bible study can be found by consulting this work.
The journey begins in the world of the Bible and the original audience of the passage being studied and ends in our world and our life as we apply the message to our own situation.
Step 1: Grasping the Text in Their Town
Question: What did the text mean to the biblical audience?
Read carefully and observe to see as much as possible in the text. Try to summarise what the passage meant to the original audience in one or two sentences.
Step 2: Measuring the Width of the River to Cross
Question: What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?
Some of the differences to consider will be: time, language, culture, situation and whether in the Old Testament (covenant) or New Testament (covenant). Look at this stage to find rather than minimize differences.
Remember for some passages, the river will be wider than for others.
Step 3: Crossing the Principlizing Bridge
Question: What is the theological principle in this text?
This is most difficult step. Find the theological principle or principles in the text. These principles should be generated from the text and not be brought to the text by us. What is the message of the passage that comes across the river of time, culture, situation etc?
The principle must be related to the meaning found in Step 1. In what ways are we the same as the original audience, despite the differences between us?
The principle should be:
- reflected in the text
- timeless
- not tied to the specific situation
- not culturally bound
- in line with the rest of Scripture
- relevant to the original and the present-day audience
Step 4: Grasping the Text in Our Town
Question: How should individual Christians today apply the theological principle in their lives?
This step is about exploring how the principle(s) we have identified apply to the church and our lives today.
What are the implications of the principle identified for what we believe as Christians? What our church should be like? How we should think and act as followers of Jesus?
__
The method of Bible study described here is taken from the very helpful book, Grasping God's Word, by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hayes. Much more detail on this approach to Bible study can be found by consulting this work.
Thursday, 15 February 2018
How to treat someone like a pagan or tax collector
In Matthew 18, Jesus has just taught the parable of the lost sheep and concludes it with an insight into God's purposes and desires: "In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish" (v.14).
At first glance it might seem that Jesus then suddenly changes subject and speaks about how to conduct church discipline and possible ex-communication of a persistent sinner within the church:
The key aspect here is getting a right understanding of what it means to treat someone as "a pagan and a tax collector".
If we consider that "pagan" is practically synonymous with "Gentile" and "Tax Collector" is akin to a Jew who has turned against his own people to help the pagans, we may begin to see what is going on here.
A pagan is, in the Jewish terms of the day that Christ is adopting here, someone who is completely outside the sphere of the people of God. A tax collector is essentially a Jewish traitor, someone who grew up within the sphere of God's people, but who has turned against his own people to help the pagans.
I would argue that in modern church terms, these could be compared to someone with a completely unchurched background and someone who grew up in the church and then turned against it.
Contrary to how some people might view a verse like this, Jesus is not teaching that we are free to shun, ignore or even hate someone who persists in sin, fails to accept church discipline and is put out of fellowship. We can be certain of this because that's not how Jesus treated pagans and tax collectors. He loved them, befriended them and sought to bring them into the Kingdom of God.
What Jesus is really saying is that if someone fails to accept church discipline, we must treat them as if they were not one of Christ's sheep and then go and seek to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. Never are we to abandon them or have a "good riddance" attitude.
Once we remember that our attitude to someone who is not a believer—however they got to that place—is to love them, tell them of Jesus Christ and the gospel of forgiveness and restoration for sinners, we see that sometimes church discipline, followed by ongoing love and seeking to care for the lost sheep, is Christ's chosen method for making sure that none "of these little ones should perish."
At first glance it might seem that Jesus then suddenly changes subject and speaks about how to conduct church discipline and possible ex-communication of a persistent sinner within the church:
"If your brother or sister sins go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:15-17)My argument is that this apparent "switch of subjects" is nothing of the sort. What Jesus is doing is explaining an important point for how we deal with the "lost sheep" who goes astray and, in one way or another, leaves the flock. We often think of the Parable of the Lost Sheep about bringing new people to faith in Christ, but it seems to me the parable is also about someone who was in the flock and then went astray.
The key aspect here is getting a right understanding of what it means to treat someone as "a pagan and a tax collector".
If we consider that "pagan" is practically synonymous with "Gentile" and "Tax Collector" is akin to a Jew who has turned against his own people to help the pagans, we may begin to see what is going on here.
A pagan is, in the Jewish terms of the day that Christ is adopting here, someone who is completely outside the sphere of the people of God. A tax collector is essentially a Jewish traitor, someone who grew up within the sphere of God's people, but who has turned against his own people to help the pagans.
I would argue that in modern church terms, these could be compared to someone with a completely unchurched background and someone who grew up in the church and then turned against it.
Contrary to how some people might view a verse like this, Jesus is not teaching that we are free to shun, ignore or even hate someone who persists in sin, fails to accept church discipline and is put out of fellowship. We can be certain of this because that's not how Jesus treated pagans and tax collectors. He loved them, befriended them and sought to bring them into the Kingdom of God.
What Jesus is really saying is that if someone fails to accept church discipline, we must treat them as if they were not one of Christ's sheep and then go and seek to bring the lost sheep back into the fold. Never are we to abandon them or have a "good riddance" attitude.
Once we remember that our attitude to someone who is not a believer—however they got to that place—is to love them, tell them of Jesus Christ and the gospel of forgiveness and restoration for sinners, we see that sometimes church discipline, followed by ongoing love and seeking to care for the lost sheep, is Christ's chosen method for making sure that none "of these little ones should perish."
Saturday, 16 December 2017
The Magnificat (Remix)
The Magnificat is the traditional name for Mary's song of praise in Luke
1:46-55. It's always been a reading associated with the advent season.
This portion of Scripture takes place after the angel Gabriel has visited Mary and told her what God is going to do through her getting pregnant and giving birth to the long-awaited Messiah, and after Mary has gone to stay with her cousin Elizabeth who is expecting a child also, who we later discover is John the Baptist. The two women are well aware that God is about to do great and mighty things through them - and through the babies they will bring into the world.
Reading Mary's song it sounds very like one of the Old Testament psalms. It is one of the great songs of praise found in the Bible.
Consider the power and beauty of the words with me.
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (verses 46-47)
Mary praises God, the God she has presumably known and loved her whole life. The God of her fathers, and her father's fathers. The God of the Old Testament. Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. It is this God that she "magnifies" or "praises" or "glorifies". Not only does he praise him, she rejoices in him. One of the sure signs that our relationship with God is on the right track is when we actually enjoy being in his presence, in reading his Word, in prayer and in worship. The Shorter Catechism famously states "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" which put simply means it is when we glorify him and enjoy him that we are fulfilling the main purpose of our lives.
"for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (verses 48-49)
The song then goes on with a number of reasons why Mary is so moved to praise God and rejoice. Mary realises that God is her Saviour and that he is now acting in the decisive period of redemptive history to bring about salvation through the child Mary is carrying in her womb. We might say in passing that the fact that Mary herself knew she was in need of a Saviour suggests that the Roman Catholic teaching about Mary's sinlessness is somewhat wide of the mark. Only those in trouble need rescuing.
The remainder of the song from verses 50-55 is one statement after another about what God has done, is doing and will do for his people. He shows "mercy" (verse 50), and strength (verse 51). And how we need both of these divine attributes in our Saviour? Without mercy he would not be inclined to save. Without strength he would not be able. But blessed be God for he is both merciful to save and powerful to save.
In his saving action he turns the world upside down. He scatters the proud, he brings the mighty down to earth, while he raises up the poor and the humble. He feeds his servants, but sends other away empty-handed. This is a true assessment of the very different King and kingdom that this represents compared to the puppet king Herod and the Roman overlords who then ruled the world. In God's decisive action in sending the Messiah to be Israel's true king and the Saviour and Lord of the world, Mary knew nothing would ever be the same again. We do well to remember the political edge to the gospel in our day. Mary's song was a challenge to the powers and authorities in the real world, both then and now.
As we come to the climax of the advent season, maybe we will catch a fresh glimpse of God's glory, God's saving plan, and God's love for his people, and make Mary's words our own (as Timothy Dudley-Smith paraphrased them): "Tell out my soul, the greatness of the Lord; in God my Saviour shall my heart rejoice!"
This portion of Scripture takes place after the angel Gabriel has visited Mary and told her what God is going to do through her getting pregnant and giving birth to the long-awaited Messiah, and after Mary has gone to stay with her cousin Elizabeth who is expecting a child also, who we later discover is John the Baptist. The two women are well aware that God is about to do great and mighty things through them - and through the babies they will bring into the world.
Reading Mary's song it sounds very like one of the Old Testament psalms. It is one of the great songs of praise found in the Bible.
Consider the power and beauty of the words with me.
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour." (verses 46-47)
Mary praises God, the God she has presumably known and loved her whole life. The God of her fathers, and her father's fathers. The God of the Old Testament. Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel. It is this God that she "magnifies" or "praises" or "glorifies". Not only does he praise him, she rejoices in him. One of the sure signs that our relationship with God is on the right track is when we actually enjoy being in his presence, in reading his Word, in prayer and in worship. The Shorter Catechism famously states "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" which put simply means it is when we glorify him and enjoy him that we are fulfilling the main purpose of our lives.
"for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name." (verses 48-49)
The song then goes on with a number of reasons why Mary is so moved to praise God and rejoice. Mary realises that God is her Saviour and that he is now acting in the decisive period of redemptive history to bring about salvation through the child Mary is carrying in her womb. We might say in passing that the fact that Mary herself knew she was in need of a Saviour suggests that the Roman Catholic teaching about Mary's sinlessness is somewhat wide of the mark. Only those in trouble need rescuing.
The remainder of the song from verses 50-55 is one statement after another about what God has done, is doing and will do for his people. He shows "mercy" (verse 50), and strength (verse 51). And how we need both of these divine attributes in our Saviour? Without mercy he would not be inclined to save. Without strength he would not be able. But blessed be God for he is both merciful to save and powerful to save.
In his saving action he turns the world upside down. He scatters the proud, he brings the mighty down to earth, while he raises up the poor and the humble. He feeds his servants, but sends other away empty-handed. This is a true assessment of the very different King and kingdom that this represents compared to the puppet king Herod and the Roman overlords who then ruled the world. In God's decisive action in sending the Messiah to be Israel's true king and the Saviour and Lord of the world, Mary knew nothing would ever be the same again. We do well to remember the political edge to the gospel in our day. Mary's song was a challenge to the powers and authorities in the real world, both then and now.
As we come to the climax of the advent season, maybe we will catch a fresh glimpse of God's glory, God's saving plan, and God's love for his people, and make Mary's words our own (as Timothy Dudley-Smith paraphrased them): "Tell out my soul, the greatness of the Lord; in God my Saviour shall my heart rejoice!"
Wednesday, 13 December 2017
The Season of Waiting
We spend a lot of our lives waiting. We wait in train stations, airports, at bus stops, and in traffic jams. We wait to be seen at the doctor or the dentist. We wait for visitors to arrive and sometimes for visitors to go. We wait for things to arrive in the post or in our computer's inbox.
We spend so much time waiting that the word is an adjective we use to describe various nouns. So we have waiting rooms and waiting areas. We have waiting lists and waiting times.
For me waiting is often a frustration. I see it too often as synonymous with just wasting time.
But waiting is not always a bad thing. It depends how we use the waiting time. Much of the joy in life comes from the pleasure that comes after a period of waiting for something good to happen. I'm thinking of some of life's key moments, like waiting during your engagement for the wedding day and waiting during pregnancy for the child's birth.
For many people, advent is just the boring wait until Christmas, like waiting in a queue before you get in to see an exciting film or show. Necessary but dull.
This advent I'm trying to use the waiting time positively, to consider the state of the world and the state of my own life, and recognise afresh the need for the Saviour, just as much in 21st century Britain as in 1st century Palestine.
God's idea to put the world to rights when all else had failed, by coming to the world himself as a baby to save it, must be the most beautiful, loving and audacious thought ever to have entered the divine mind.
As one Christmas carol puts it:
Sacred Infant, all divine,
What a tender love was Thine,
Thus to come from highest bliss,
Down to such a world as this.
Tender love indeed because he comes not to get anything from us, but to give us everything he has. He loves us and wants us to love him too. That's it. It's all he wants and it's the only thing we could possibly give him. As another carol says:
And waiting to celebrate his birth once again is no waste of time. It is an act of love and an honour.
We spend so much time waiting that the word is an adjective we use to describe various nouns. So we have waiting rooms and waiting areas. We have waiting lists and waiting times.
For me waiting is often a frustration. I see it too often as synonymous with just wasting time.
But waiting is not always a bad thing. It depends how we use the waiting time. Much of the joy in life comes from the pleasure that comes after a period of waiting for something good to happen. I'm thinking of some of life's key moments, like waiting during your engagement for the wedding day and waiting during pregnancy for the child's birth.
For many people, advent is just the boring wait until Christmas, like waiting in a queue before you get in to see an exciting film or show. Necessary but dull.
This advent I'm trying to use the waiting time positively, to consider the state of the world and the state of my own life, and recognise afresh the need for the Saviour, just as much in 21st century Britain as in 1st century Palestine.
God's idea to put the world to rights when all else had failed, by coming to the world himself as a baby to save it, must be the most beautiful, loving and audacious thought ever to have entered the divine mind.
As one Christmas carol puts it:
Sacred Infant, all divine,
What a tender love was Thine,
Thus to come from highest bliss,
Down to such a world as this.
Tender love indeed because he comes not to get anything from us, but to give us everything he has. He loves us and wants us to love him too. That's it. It's all he wants and it's the only thing we could possibly give him. As another carol says:
What can I give Him, poor as I am?
...Yet what I can I give Him: give my heart.And waiting to celebrate his birth once again is no waste of time. It is an act of love and an honour.
Thursday, 9 November 2017
Without Jesus
What are we without Jesus?
By "we" I mean those of us who claim to be Christians, those who believe in him, who try to follow him.
And by "without" I don't mean separate from him in a way connected to salvation. I mean when we try to be Christians without his spirit, without his example, without his teaching and without his grace.
First, we can be moralists. We can become obsessed with doing right (or more often doing wrong) and our faith can quickly become a soul crushing weight of things to do and things to avoid doing. And that's just when we look at ourselves.
When we turn that same attitude on other people. we can be judgemental. The same obsession and fear of anyone doing something we consider wrong can ruin relationships and block opportunities there might have been for genuine gospel conversations.
Taken to an extreme, we can become the religious thought police. The phrase was coined by George Orwell in 1984 but the same attitude is present in many Christians. Whereas moralism and judgementalism often manifest themselves with regard to ethics and behaviour, the Christian thought police are more interested in people's beliefs and doctrines. Rather than appreciating that, on many secondary or fringe issues, there are a range of legitimate viewpoints among Christians, the thought police pursue a narrow path of what they consider orthodox and oppose anyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal point.
As an evangelical Christian myself, I think it fair to say that these three tendencies are all dangers that evangelical Christians are sometimes drawn towards when they take their eyes off Jesus and how he lived and dealt with others.
But there are also dangers in acting "without Jesus" for our liberal brothers and sisters
We can become amateur social workers or aid workers whose activities while laudable in helping those in need can become indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Jesus and his good news of personal salvation, social change and cosmic renewal are the only distinct things we have to go people.
In a similar fashion, liberals can become political activists with their eyes totally focused on the political and economic problems in this world and little thought of the spiritual problems that beset us all as human beings or that the only way to really address those issues is by the renewal of the Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ.
At times evangelicals have been guilty of teaching a truncated gospel which is all about the next life with little to say about the current state of the world. But liberals too often, if they teach anything substantive at all, teach an equally truncated gospel with little to say about sin, atonement and salvation—in short a "gospel" without the good news of Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.
Jesus taught the truth, Jesus wanted people to live good lives, Jesus helped people without falling into any of these traps.
All we have is Jesus. And the gospel—the message of who he is and what he has done—is the only distinctive thing we have to give people.
You know the old Oxfam proverb: 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'
We need a similar motto as Christians. 'Tell a man how to live, and you alienate him for one day; give a man Jesus and you change him forever.'
By "we" I mean those of us who claim to be Christians, those who believe in him, who try to follow him.
And by "without" I don't mean separate from him in a way connected to salvation. I mean when we try to be Christians without his spirit, without his example, without his teaching and without his grace.
First, we can be moralists. We can become obsessed with doing right (or more often doing wrong) and our faith can quickly become a soul crushing weight of things to do and things to avoid doing. And that's just when we look at ourselves.
When we turn that same attitude on other people. we can be judgemental. The same obsession and fear of anyone doing something we consider wrong can ruin relationships and block opportunities there might have been for genuine gospel conversations.
Taken to an extreme, we can become the religious thought police. The phrase was coined by George Orwell in 1984 but the same attitude is present in many Christians. Whereas moralism and judgementalism often manifest themselves with regard to ethics and behaviour, the Christian thought police are more interested in people's beliefs and doctrines. Rather than appreciating that, on many secondary or fringe issues, there are a range of legitimate viewpoints among Christians, the thought police pursue a narrow path of what they consider orthodox and oppose anyone who disagrees with them on any doctrinal point.
As an evangelical Christian myself, I think it fair to say that these three tendencies are all dangers that evangelical Christians are sometimes drawn towards when they take their eyes off Jesus and how he lived and dealt with others.
But there are also dangers in acting "without Jesus" for our liberal brothers and sisters
We can become amateur social workers or aid workers whose activities while laudable in helping those in need can become indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. Jesus and his good news of personal salvation, social change and cosmic renewal are the only distinct things we have to go people.
In a similar fashion, liberals can become political activists with their eyes totally focused on the political and economic problems in this world and little thought of the spiritual problems that beset us all as human beings or that the only way to really address those issues is by the renewal of the Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ.
At times evangelicals have been guilty of teaching a truncated gospel which is all about the next life with little to say about the current state of the world. But liberals too often, if they teach anything substantive at all, teach an equally truncated gospel with little to say about sin, atonement and salvation—in short a "gospel" without the good news of Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.
Jesus taught the truth, Jesus wanted people to live good lives, Jesus helped people without falling into any of these traps.
All we have is Jesus. And the gospel—the message of who he is and what he has done—is the only distinctive thing we have to give people.
You know the old Oxfam proverb: 'Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.'
We need a similar motto as Christians. 'Tell a man how to live, and you alienate him for one day; give a man Jesus and you change him forever.'
Friday, 22 September 2017
The Christian Critique of the Politics of Left and Right
I came across these interesting articles discussing both conservatism and liberalism from the Christian point of view and identifying the problems Christians might have with both the politics of the Right and the Left as traditionally understood.
First, a discussion of Liberalism (left wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
Then an equally interesting critique of conservatism (right wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism
These are fairly long and detailed reads, but they helped me remember that the way of Jesus is not the same as any secular political philosophy. Although written against the backdrop of American politics, in which the poltiical spectrum is much further to the right than in the UK, they are still relevant to the British political system as well.
First, a discussion of Liberalism (left wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
Then an equally interesting critique of conservatism (right wing politics): http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism
These are fairly long and detailed reads, but they helped me remember that the way of Jesus is not the same as any secular political philosophy. Although written against the backdrop of American politics, in which the poltiical spectrum is much further to the right than in the UK, they are still relevant to the British political system as well.
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
The Case for a Universal Basic Income
For a while I've been interested in the political policy known as the Universal Basic Income (also known as the Basic Income Guarantee or a Negative Income Tax).
It is usually thought of as a left wing policy, but it is interesting that many on the Right of the political spectrum also advocate this policy.
For example, I came across a couple of interesting articles on why the classical liberal economist Friedrich von Hayek supported a basic universal income.
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
Hayek was a leading free market economist (it is said Margaret Thatcher used to carry around a copy of his book The Road to Serfdom in her handbag), but he maintained that in a free society there should be a basic income floor that no one is permitted to fall below.
Having seen that F. A. von Hayek seemed to favour a universal basic income, I've found a few other interesting pieces that also argue for the policy. As these show, there is a right-wing case for this policy as well as a left-wing case.
The free market Adam Smith Institute in the UK and the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States are both organisations coming at this policy from the Right of the political spectrum.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
As can be seen from the video below, even the arch-free marketeer, Milton Friedman, advocated something like a universal basic income, though Friedman's idea was actually a kind of "negative income tax."
Similarly, Charles Murray, the conservative political scientist, is a supporter of the basic income, as he speaks about in this speech at the American Enterprise Institute:
Maybe the Universal Basic Income could be a policy around which left and right could come to an agreement?
It is usually thought of as a left wing policy, but it is interesting that many on the Right of the political spectrum also advocate this policy.
For example, I came across a couple of interesting articles on why the classical liberal economist Friedrich von Hayek supported a basic universal income.
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
Hayek was a leading free market economist (it is said Margaret Thatcher used to carry around a copy of his book The Road to Serfdom in her handbag), but he maintained that in a free society there should be a basic income floor that no one is permitted to fall below.
Having seen that F. A. von Hayek seemed to favour a universal basic income, I've found a few other interesting pieces that also argue for the policy. As these show, there is a right-wing case for this policy as well as a left-wing case.
The free market Adam Smith Institute in the UK and the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States are both organisations coming at this policy from the Right of the political spectrum.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
As can be seen from the video below, even the arch-free marketeer, Milton Friedman, advocated something like a universal basic income, though Friedman's idea was actually a kind of "negative income tax."
Similarly, Charles Murray, the conservative political scientist, is a supporter of the basic income, as he speaks about in this speech at the American Enterprise Institute:
Maybe the Universal Basic Income could be a policy around which left and right could come to an agreement?
Friday, 8 September 2017
My Ideal Bible Translation
It is something of an understatement to say that there is no shortage of Bible translations in the English language. The popular website Bible Gateway lists over 50 English translations either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament and there are probably at least as many other English translatons not included on that site. New translations or revisions of existing translations seem to come out every other year or two.
It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.
Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.
With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.
I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."
1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.
2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.
3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.
4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.
5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.
6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.
7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.
8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.
9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!
10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.
If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.
It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.
Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.
With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.
I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."
1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.
2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.
3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.
4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.
5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.
6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.
7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.
8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.
9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!
10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.
If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)