Risky talk

Why are we so silent?

ot long ago, I was teaching a junior soldier preparation class. I feel strongly that children who are believers need to see themselves as active combatants in the war against sin and oppression, so I consider it a special honor to try to guide young hearts and minds. I took the opportunity to open up discussion about the urgency to share our faith.

In this small class was an extremely bright ten-year-old. She had thorough answers and thoughtful questions. But when the topic of evangelism came up, she threw me for a loop. “Of course,” she said casually, “we only talk about Jesus with other people who believe in him. We wouldn’t want to offend people who have different beliefs - like Muslims, or something.”

At that moment I realized how thoroughly anti-Christian dogma had penetrated our society. It broke my heart to see such an astute and sincere little girl operating under the idea that she didn’t have the right to share the Gospel. In truth, she has more than a right - she has a responsibility.

If one looks around, one will quickly see that this girl’s misconception is prevalent amongst Christian adults. I can hardly blame a little girl for it, but I would wish to call to task mature adult Christians who buckle to politically correct pressure. There are Army programs that shy away from proclaiming Christ because they may lose public funding. There are Army officers who won’t give the Gospel to influential members of the community because they don’t want to lose their support. What have we become?

I think of Stephen, the first to give his life for the Gospel. I think of Peter and John who, though their safety was at risk, declared: “for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). There’s something ironic in the modern attitude: we all believe that we would give our lives for Christ if faced with the prospect of martyrdom, yet we won’t put our corps budget on the line. We won’t put our programs on the line. We’re like the proverbial frog in the water. The frog would leap from a pot of boiling water, but if you put him in tepid water and just gradually turn up the heat, he’ll sit there until he’s boiled. Sharing the Gospel hasn’t been outlawed. If it were, we’d know what to do. We’d thumb our noses at the law and obey the higher command (that of Christ). But here we sit, in the water, as the temperature is gradually increased. It is less and less acceptable to share the Gospel. We tell ourselves that we don’t want to turn anyone off by our aggressiveness, so we say nothing. I wonder how quickly the day will come when Christian worship actually becomes illegal in North America. If that day arrives, to what extent will we have been responsible?

In the meantime, I can name at least two neighbors of mine who would go to hell if they were to die today. I want to deliver the Gospel sensitively. I want to be timely about it. But I will not be silent. One of these neighbors is Jewish. I will not stop talking to her about Jesus simply because she doesn’t already believe he is the Messiah.

I refuse to be afraid. Not just about losing my life - but about losing money, losing face, losing favor with people. Offering my body as a living sacrifice is my reasonable service. And I think that means more than being prepared to die. It means being prepared to live in the face of adversity.

Let’s live as long as the Lord allows. But let’s live faithfully. He has left us here to be his spokespersons. Will we then be silent?

Writer: Amy Reardon is a Salvation Army officer living and serving in Seattle, Washington. She grew up in Southern California and takes great pride in having been a UCLA Bruin. She loves to sing, play the euphonium, read, talk theology, travel and go to the movies. She loves almost any kind of music, from hip hop to opera, and really wishes she were a better dancer. Amy is married to Rob and they have three sons: Kyle, Wes and David. Together they comprise the loudest, craziest family on the block. Amy is the Christian Education Director, Northwest Division, U.S.A. Western territory.

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 Belief, Ephemera

32 Comments to Risky talk

I do not support evangelisation of the Jewish people because I understand the damage it does to them as a community, and how much it hurts them. I believe it helps when feeling a strong desire, as I do, that all should come to know Jesus, to be mindful of how the Jewish people have very deep psychological scars from centuries of persecution by the church, and are suffering acutely still from what happened in the holocaust. This is not easily conveyed - in fact it is very hard to communicate the depth of this - to someone outside the Jewish community. Lovingkindness calls us to sensitivity in how we relate to others, and to focus on healing rather than damaging others, even through our sincerest religious convictions. I would encourage people to bear this in mind when aiming to be the bringer of good news, and I pray you will be a blessing to your Jewish neighbour that will lead them to a deeper commitment to God, Torah and mitzvot regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus as Messiah.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on July 1st, 2008

Hi Amy
Thank you for that! Could I just say that there are people who are more than happy to help you with the “how to’s” regarding your Jewish friends.
There is a Messianic Jewish Congregation in Newcastle:

http://www.beittikvah.com/

If I can help, all the way from the north of England, do let me know!

Adrian Glasspole on July 1st, 2008

Thanks for the post, Amy.

I agree we have an obligation to preach the gospel to all, and the mandate to make disciples shouldn’t just trump our budgets — it needs to be the reason for them! Yet I also see the need to be careful not to cause offence needlessly, especially in a pluralist society in which many have just cause to be suspicious of Christians and their motives.

I wonder what it was exactly your young friend was worried about. I think it’s great she doesn’t want to offend people. And let’s face it, Christians can be pretty offensive. I remember a Christian group at university that measured it’s success by the amount of negative publicity they got in the campus newspaper. They figured that anyone complaining about them was simply reacting against the gospel. It didn’t occur to anyone in the group they were just being jerks.

Being a jerk isn’t the way of love, and that’s got to be at the core of our evangelism. Not wanting our neighbours to spend eternity apart from God is an admirable goal that naturally flows from the love we have for them. Yet loving our non-Christian neighbour is far, far more than just warning them about their eternal fate. It’s more than just trying to get another notch in our Bible covers. I wonder how many Christians would love their neighbours if they somehow knew they’d never be saved?

Loving our neighbours is a lot of work. It may even require sacrifice on our part. For some (and I’m sure we all know Christians who wouldn’t be able to make this sacrifice) it may mean serving our neighbours rather than brow-beating them. It might even mean admitting we don’t have a monopoly on God’s truth.

I think it’s entirely appropriate to respect the religious choices other people have made. We don’t have to agree with those choices, but we have to consider the possibility that they believe what they do for good reasons.

The highlight of my week is when I go to a local public school and teach Christian religious education to 10-12 year olds. My job is to teach the Bible. I’m most certainly not allowed to proselytise. It’s a secular school and that’s the way it should be.

I could count on two fingers the number of kids who attend church (out of 120 — and one of them’s mine!) Yet these kids have some pretty amazing insight into God, and I have to say, I’m glad a lot of them have had a chance to think about religious things without feeling they have to conform to Christian dogma. I’ve been a Christian for over twenty years, professionally so for nearly ten. How is it they teach me?

I can guarantee if I didn’t respect them or their beliefs I’d never have had a chance to find out.

By the way, I love that t-shirt. Somehow I think that’s the exact look Jesus must have had when he saw it!

Cameron Horsburgh on July 1st, 2008

I agree with Cameron, particularly in feeling that we sometimes need to admit that we “don’t have a monopoly on God’s truth.”

I feel that the entire conversation about “sharing our faith” needs to be redirected. When I was a Junior Soldier, sharing faith was always described in terms of walking up to friends–or strangers–and striking up conversations about Jesus. Lots of platitudes, lots of memorized Bible verses, lots of “haveyouacceptedJesusChristasyourpersonalsavior”–but very little relating or understanding to the person at hand. In concept, it made us feel like crusaders, but in practice, it plain didn’t work–and I feel that it gave me a skewed perception of just what other people were supposed to mean to me as a Christian.

Of course, sacrificing one’s faith in the name of not stepping on toes is the wrong way to go. Yet I think your young friend may have been on to something when she expressed a desire not to “offend people.” I think the desire not to offend doesn’t have to be completely divorced from the desire to share one’s faith; I think the two concepts can be linked to one purpose.

Because when you think about it, when are people most offended? Isn’t it when they feel they aren’t being listened to, aren’t being valued? Shouldn’t listening and valuing and caring be the means by which we share our faith–rather than keeping a quota of those around us who are “going to hell”?

Lesley Carter on July 1st, 2008

Amy:

Thanks for this.

My experience has been that people who are truly of other faiths (beyond nominal identification) are more than eager to hear about mine. It is those who live outside of faith traditions and/or feel that belief in Christ is systematic supersition that are far more difficult, because there is no respect there.

If the objective is to bring others to Christ, my telling others about him will not be as effective as showing them by living my life as testimony. This is something I have learned again, and again.

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on July 1st, 2008

Eleanor,

As a believer, are you content to allow anyone to simply “deepen” their faith in incomplete or erroneous religion? Leading a Jewish person to a deeper faith or understanding in God can only lead them to Jesus. Remember, that God sent his only son into the world…

Stopping short of introducing anyone to God’s son is akin to tying a millstone around their neck and hastening their descent. I would hope all Christians would live out Jude 23 rather than hide behind the remnants of the veil that was torn in two at the crucifixion of Christ!

Rob on July 1st, 2008

Hello Rob, I am passionately committed to seeing people come to Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Don’t underestimate my desire to do that! :0) I will certainly, with I hope care, sensitivity and honesty share my faith with Jewish people if an individual asks me, but not otherwise. But I believe we have a God of lovingkindness and mercy, and it is important we model those aspects of his nature when we communicate with others. For so long now the church has often had the reputation of not doing that at all in the way we communicate faith.

You say telling a Jew about Jesus can only lead them to Jesus. I do not agree. It can lead to them entering the kind of personal crisis that leads to loss of faith altogether, to depression and even suicide. When you factor in the level of trauma involved in an orthodox Jewish person leaving behind their entire family and community in order to publically profess Christian faith, and the huge distress the fall out causes them and their families, you see it in a different perspective. Of course we should surrender all to follow Jesus. But let me tell you this, if a Jewish man or woman in orthodoxy accepts Christ and is open about it, they will in all probability, almost certainly, lose their marriage, and the custody of their children. They may well never see them again in practice. Their former spouse may find it hard to remarry, almost impossible if it is the woman who is left behind in the Jewish community. The children will not get school places in religious Jewish schools, which may not seem like much to you, but in reality means they will be expelled, and it be known all over the community they were expelled from school. Each child will be publically humiliated in that way even if they didn’t convert. The schools are a passport to good yeshivas and sems and good stable marriage partners in the Jewish world. So the children’s future marriages will be badly affected, and even the siblings and cousins of those children will have a shadow over them because of their relative’s religion. Mortgages can be recalled if they have come from within the Jewish community. Business loans can be called in again, if they have been made internally within families or communities as often happens.

Literally overnight, the Jew who converts will lose their entire world. House, marriage, children, business, and their children’s future. They may well not have a friend who speaks to them. I know what I’m talking about. I’m not going into details here of what I went through, and what I went through was nothing in comparison to some.

The convert’s parents may well sit shiva for their son or daughter and go through the full mourning process for 30 days. That person will be referred to as deceased from then on in that family. I watched someone go through this. From a distance, even their Jewishness will be denied by some of the rabbonim (not all).

Now scroll back and start looking at it from the perspective of their friends and neighbours, in light of the full horror of the loss of 6m Jews in the holocaust, who are not numbers to Jewish people, but grandma, grandpa, great grandparents, cousins, and so on. They were real people, with names, faces, and photos by which we can remember and never forget. They were my sister in law’s grandparent’s and family sitting in a meadow by a river, sharing a family picnic in Romania, only a year or so before they were rounded up and killed.

Please - if you ever get the desire to go witness to Jews, just spend a few weeks first just listening to Jewish people, specially the orthodox, talking about how it feels to them when they are evangelised. Read books on the Shoah written by survivors. Listen to the testimonies of those who survived. Ask observant Jewish friends what it means to them each time a child is born into the community, and reaches adulthood and continues in faithfulness to Torah to the next generation. Try to stand in their shoes and understand the depth of pain Jewish evangelism causes the community and why and how.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on July 2nd, 2008

Having been somewhat surprised by the comments, I reread my article and I can understand why some may have thought I was talking about aggressive, buttonholing evangelism. I’m not about that.

Take the friend I mentioned, for example. She and I spent a good deal of time getting to know each other, and it was very comfortable and natural for me to ask about her spiritual journey. She welcomed the conversation. Eleanor, you will be pleased to know that as a result of our conversations, she began to attend religious services at the synagogue again along with her young sons, who had only been for special occasions. Now they are regulars. Still, I agree with Rob. Jesus IS Jewish and is the completion of their faith and I would pray that they meet him some day. Why would I wish otherwise for people I care about if I believe that joy, peace, salvation and biblical shalom are completed in Jesus Christ?

My husband and I have approached matters of faith subtly with our neighbors (who are our friends, not our evangelism projects). We are in the process of moving across country, and our neighborhood friends presented us with a book in which many of them thanked us for demonstrating the love of God, etc. As some have mentioned above, you don’t need to be offensive to share your faith.

But most Rubicon readers would claim that the Bible is inerrant truth, and would therefore agree that salvation is found in Christ alone (Jn 14:6) and that Christ issued the command to share our faith (Matt. 28:19, et al.) I am certainly glad that the early Christians were not unduly concerned about being offensive, otherwise I suppose I’d be a practicing Druid, like my ancestors. At some point someone has to open their mouths and say something. And you know, lots of people want to hear the gospel from a person whose life demonstrates its veracity. Aren’t we glad someone shared it with us?

I was born into a Christian family. Should I never share my faith and just rejoice in the fact that I won the religious jackpot because I got parents who knew that Jesus is very God of very God? (I think that’s the expression - someone can correct me on that if necessary!)

I don’t anticipate that God will condemn to hell those who never had the chance to hear the gospel. But for those who have the chance to hear of Jesus, they stand to gain more than just “fire insurance.” Life with Jesus is just better than life without him. We were made for communion with God. A Christian often comes across to his non-Christian friends as fulfilled. And that’s exactly what he is. So I will always look for and even attempt to create opportunity to share the Savior I’ve found.

One last thing. I have a Bible club at my house for neighborhood kids. Some of the moms who sent their kids had no religious background of any type (some people in my area grew up in communist China). One woman always attended the club with her kids. The kids began relationships with Christ. I kept trying to find the opportunity to ask the mom if she could apply these truths to her own life. We had coffee, lunches, bbq’s together, but the moment was never quite right. But in the book our neighbors gave us at our farewell party, she wrote a loving message to my sons about God’s protection over them. Two years ago I know that never would have occured to her. You know,we do what we can, and let the Holy Spirit do his work.

So much more to say, but if I say too much, no one will read it!
Grace to all.

Amy Reardon on July 2nd, 2008

Eleanor,

I hear what you are saying and don’t pretend to understand things from your perspective. Two thoughts, though.

The feelings you described Jewish people feeling when being “evangelized”, are the same as I would feel, or pretty much most people (these days, at least) when something like this is being done to them. Evangelism as a “technique” or a “strategy” or a “formula” is always dehumanizing and quite antithetical to Gospel values.

Secondly, the loss you described Jewish converts going through can also be said of Muslims who convert. Worse even. And Hindus? And Buddhists? So, it begs the question of whether or not evangelicals should share their faith with anyone from any of the other world religions. At all.

Geoff Ryan on July 2nd, 2008

Hi Geoff
You make some good points. I have only limited understanding of what actually happens in the Muslim world, so am unable to comment. I do know, however, that when my belief in Yeshua became known to my leaders, I was put out of the Community. As a single man, I knew that meant that were I to find a lady to whom I wished to be joined, that wouldn’t be a religious ceremony; if there were boys they wouldn’t be circumcised &c. Not being circumcised is not simply that an operation wouldn’t happen; it would mean that he was not regarded as a participant in the Covenant and its promises. If, as Isaiah says, all Israel have a place in the world to come, and the boy is not a member of Israel, that is an eternal judgement, not an operation. Not to give too much away, I was written out of my Father’s Will and have no eartlhy inheritance. I am not served in many Jewish stores & businesses.
NONE of these are reasons NOT to accept that Yeshua is Messiah. However, sharing faith is one thing; making a Jewish disciple is quite another. Neither Judaism nor following Yeshua (as a Jew or Gentile) are about belief systems. In Hebrew faith is a verb, unlike the Greek which is an acceptance of a fact.
That is why Yeshua called Himself The Way, and why the name for what some (wrongly) call The Church was initially The Way. In Hebrew we talk of Halakhah - literally, the walking.
Of COURSE we should share our faith. We should make people envious because of the faith we have! However that means seeing people, as Ann says, as friends not evangelism projects. If my friends decide not to accept Yeshua, they are still my friends. That is vital. People should not believe that they are mere targets, and that should they disagree with a point of theology they will spend eternity in teeth-grinding agony because they rejected some Christian’s interpretation of the Bible.
In short. . . .
Love Won Another

Adrian Glasspole on July 3rd, 2008

Geoff, I would argue that people from other faiths have not generally had the kind of tortured history with the church the Jewish people have had, and so we do need to take that history into account. Having said that every person we share our faith with, and every group, needs to be met with care. This isn’t being warm and fluffy, it’s being responsible, and understanding they are deeply loved by God and his creation. For me there is an integration in my faith, in how I understand it, between my becoming more fully human as God intended it through Christ, (praise God!), and my coming closer to understanding what it is to be human, and so beloved of God as his creation, not simply a living thing thrown together in a chaos of random events, but formed as a result of his creativity, goodness and love, his desire I should exist. That awes me, and informs me of how I am to treat others. I trust God that relating to others this way, and letting this mark how I try to communicate with those around me, will convey the gospel as effectively as anything I actually say.

So yes, don’t go out intentionally evangelising people far removed from Christianity without making sure you understand the context and that you will be bringing good news to them.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on July 3rd, 2008

That’s beautiful Amy. I care passionately we should share our faith with others. It helps to understand that in sharing Christian faith with Jews, unless you hold with a replacement theology, which many do not, you are not inviting them to convert to another faith. We will simply become Messianic Jews. I apologise if I read you as evangelising aggressively! I’ve done a certain amount of neighbour mediation and my mind was boggling as to what the consequences would be of evangelism over the fence in a frum neighbourhood! :0) I wouldn’t recommend it in some of the neighbourhoods I’ve lived in! I believe nobody comes to the Father but through Jesus, but that there are different ways of understanding that.
I am glad your bond with your neighbours was so warm - I have that experience here as well, (and am trying to sort out what to do with a dinghy one of them left for us in my garden overnight!)

Eleanor Burne-Jones on July 3rd, 2008

Hi Amy,
Over the past few years I’ve grown to enjoy the stuff you write. You clearly have spent time thinking theologically about mission, the poor, calling, etc and I’ve often resonated with your stuff.
And we’ve even become ‘facebook’ friends as a result of interactions at the Rubicon and I have a lot of respect for you and how you live out your faith. (and Rob’s alright too:)

BUT, I have to say, this piece has disturbed me all the way down. I’m not sure if the emotions I experienced while reading this were anger, embarrassment, fear, or what but I know that none of it sat well with me.

But most of all, I am surprised by your confidence in asserting that if your two neighbours were to die today that they would go to Hell.

Since when have we been given authority to make those decisions? Where in the biblical narrative does it ever give us the right or responsibility to make assertions that only God can make? Since when is it even our business to speculate as to the eternal destiny of our neighbours, or anyone else?

Isn’t our only calling to bear witness to Christ in our lives and let God do the rest?

I’m troubled by this.

Still with respect,
Dion

Dion Oxford on July 4th, 2008

Amy,

Just picking up on one of your comments: “…most Rubicon readers would claim that the bible is inerrant truth”. I’m not sure this is the case.

I am not an “inerrantist” in the sense in which it is meant in some evangelical circles these days and I’m fairly sure that this view is not shared by many other readers.

The bible is God’s Word, is a revelation of God and therefore is truth, but I don’t believe that the book itself is without some errors.
Most people I hang out with feel the same way.

Thanks for making us think though!

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 4th, 2008

Hey Amy, I buy it.

Don’t compromise our faith and zeal in evangelism for fear of offending people. Be sensitive to situations but assertive. Nice one.

And I disagree with Dion’s comment. I think its a sensible and very loving thing to try to understand a friend’s eternal situation. I don’t think Amy is sending them to Hell, merely recognising the possible/probable consequences of her friend’s life. Scripture gives us guidelines. We then have the capacity to process information in order to form conclusions. When the conclusions are disturbing we need to follow that up. If we were mistaken, hallelujah. If not, we can do our best to rectify them. I think its terribly selfish and incompassionate not to consider whether someone may be facing the prospect of endless punishment.

John Clifton on July 5th, 2008

Just realised I’d invented a word there. Incompassionate = the opposite of being compassionate

John Clifton on July 5th, 2008

“The bible is God’s Word, is a revelation of God and therefore is truth, but I don’t believe that the book itself is without some errors.”

Geoff, just interested: what authority do you use to distinguish the truths from the errors?

Matt Clifton on July 6th, 2008

‘Geoff, just interested: what authority do you use to distinguish the truths from the errors?’

Matt,

I can’t speak for Geoff, but I am one of the ‘many other readers’ he speaks for.

I use the same tools of discernment that lead many to conclude the Bible is without error: faith, wisdom and common sense. The fact that they lead to different conclusions given the same data makes their use all the more important.

Cameron Horsburgh on July 6th, 2008

Matt,

I’m just saying that the inerrantist school seems more like auto-didacticism, more ouija-board-stuff than anything else.

The amount of translations, revisions, rewriting that our present bible (whichever translation you use) has undergone from the original manuscripts up to what we now hold in our hands - there has to be a margin for human error, in my mind. As with every other aspect of the Christian life - prayer or good works, for example. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong.

God still chooses to work through us and in partnership with us fallible humans. That is how the bible was written and was translated. That’s all. Possibly I didn’t phrase my original comment to Amy clearly enough. The principles (ergo “the truth”) within the bible, hold firm.

I need to add, however, that it seems to me that some Christans believe in some inherent magic in the bible (the book)…that if you read it to people in a coma that it will somehow penetrate their consciousness more than talking to them, for example. Kind of like spell-casting. I don’t believe this. The bible is helpful and valuable insofar as it is a revelation of God -but it is not God itself. “Bibliolatry” is a danger with the inerrantist doctrine, I feel.

Oh yes, there is also the good old, Wesleyan quadrilateral - the scriptures, tradition, experience, reason. These also help, don’t they?

Kind regards,

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 6th, 2008

Hey, Geoff. I see your points. I’m curious, though, if you believe that the original autographs were inerrant? I know that there are textual differences in the many manuscripts and translation differences in others, but I tend to believe the original writings were inspired and, as such, perfect down to the letter. This doesn’t reflect my faith in the writings so much as it reflects my belief in a God of order who desires to make Himself known to us through Scripture.

Phil on July 6th, 2008

Phil, part of the answer to that question depends on what you mean by ‘inerrant.’ Does it mean that every point the Scriptures touch on—historical, scientific, theological or whatever— is true? That’s a difficult position to take, although some still choose to take it.

I am willing to say, though, that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

I’m not sure what to do with the idea that the original autographs are inerrant, even if modern translations contain error. We don’t have access to the original manuscripts, so I don’t see how the assetion is relevant. If God was so concerned to give us a perfect copy of his thoughts wouldn’t he have made sure it stayed verifiably incorrupt during its transmission?

Cameron Horsburgh on July 7th, 2008

Phil,

Cameron makes some good points here.

Also, the concept of “inspiration” is a rather broad one and our doctrine dealing with the Scriptures does say that we believe that they were “given by inspiration of God.”

If a musician or painter is inspired to compose a piece of music or create a painting, regardless of how their inspiration arrives - a sunset, a muse, the voices in their head… then they go ahead and create it. The “inspiration” or “inspirer” does not write the notes or move the paint brush.

I think the Army’s first doctrine is careful in its wording by using the term “inspiration” - it leaves matters more open than the inerrantists would have and in my reading, shuts the door on the idea that the bible was somehow “perfect down to the letter”, as you put it.

The Mormons believe this about their book, however. As do the Muslims about the Koran. So, you’re in interesting company here…
Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 7th, 2008

Geoff,

I don’t mind being in the same company as Mormons and Muslims. Basic logic principles apply here. If I say an apple is an apple and someone else comes along saying their orange is also an apple, it doesn’t make their statement true. :p Nor is my statement true just because I said it was true, which brings me back to my problem with “errancy”:

Errancy, in my opinion, leaves us with just another nice book with some good thoughts. Those who deny the inerrancy of the original autographs are left saying either that what God inspired was in some way lacking or that God was perfectly content letting man “paint a picture” with some vague inspiration, not being overly concerned with the end product. I have a difficult time picturing God that way (but I’m not always right…)

Cameron, not to be cheeky, but to answer your question, when I use the term “inerrant”, I mean “without error” in the strictest sense. I realize the problems this may pose, but if I am right, history has repeatedly debunked even widely-held scientific theories and backed up the assertions of the Bible. Archaeology, too. When all is said and done, I still believe God’s word will stand. Call me old-fashioned.
As to your other point, I think it is absolutely relevant to say that the original autographs were inerrant. Errors of copying? Ok. Errors of translation? Even more so. But to say that what God spoke to (or inspired through) His servants - prophets, saints, apostles - was mis-received somehow…

And what of Jesus assertion that “His words” will never pass away? What of His statement that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets down to the letter, everything prophesied about Him in the Old Testament? What of Peter’s use of the same word for “Scripture” to describe Paul’s writings, in effect putting the writings of the New Testament on the same par as the old?

There is no other book on the face of the earth that has been so faithfully copied and preserved over so many centuries and by so many people in so many places. Isn’t it amazing that of the relative handful of textual differences between the different manuscripts, only about 2% affect anything meaningful in the translation? I find that utterly astounding.

I know that I may sound like a “bibliolater”, but I am truly more concerned with the ideas of God that spring from consigning ourselves to an error-prone Word in its original form. God is the God of perfection - just like the created realm was originally free from blemish, so the Word in its divine transmission was perfect. And I don’t just mean that it was without defect. I mean that it was full of perfection, if you see the difference.

Phil on July 7th, 2008

“The Mormons believe this about their book, however. As do the Muslims about the Koran. So, you’re in interesting company here…”

…as do the Roman Catholics about the Bible. So much for the Reformation!

What intrigues me is that to say “this is truth but that is error” about the Bible necessarily invokes some other authority (even a supposed internal contradiction invokes logic). The tools for bringing that authority to bear judiciously may indeed be “faith, wisdom and common sense” but what is the higher authority in any given case?

For example, if I were to say Jesus was not raised and did not ascend, you would expect me to identify an authority (the skeleton of Jesus might prove persuasive). So, can you identify, say, one or two errors with appropriate authority?

Matt Clifton on July 7th, 2008

Matt,

I’m not sure you’re being fair to our Roman Catholic brethren by lumping them in together with the other groups that I mentioned. Medieval Catholicism, of the type that prompted the Reformation, is quite different than the Catholicism of today. In my experience, most Catholics have quite a high view of the Scriptures. Besides, the “Sola Scriptura”, mantra of the Reformation caused a few problems of its own, ie the 8,000 or so (exaggerating… slightly) Protestant denominations, for a start.

Which is the “higher” or “highest” authority? Well, the Wesleyan quadrilateral cited acknowledges that ultimately Scripture trumps reason, experience and tradition. It is, so to speak, the first among equals. The other factors, are an ackowledgement that as people we all approach the Scriptures through various lenses - cultural, personal, denominational, etc. As with journalism, hermeneutics can never be considered fully objective.

An example of an error? Well, I think we are straying off topic here from the original intent of Amy’s posting as well as my comment on inerrancy, but OK, I’ll give you one.

Take the Russian synodal translation of the Bible - still the most venerated and widely used translation, certainly among Russian Orthodox believers and also among most Protestant groups… its kind of like a Russian King James Version.

Well, the translation was put together from a different lineage of manuscripts than was used in the West in order to come up with the NIV or any of the other more recent and held-to-be more accurate translations.

Ephesians 5:21 speaks of the mutual submission of husband and wife. Our translations nowadays would render the reason for this submission as “reverence” for Christ. The KJV used to say “fear”. But we realize that language is a living thing and that it changes and so consequently more accurate “updates” in language are necessary in order to convey the correct meaning of the truths, of which these word are vessels.

The Russian language is far richer than English, more nuanced and usually has at it’s disposal a broader range of word choices. The Synodal version chose to use an old Russian term for “fear” that is almost entirely negative in all its connotations and application. It carries with it almost no aspect of awe and reverence, but rather a knee-shaking, grovelling-on-the-ground in abject terror, kind of response.

After verse 21, the text immediately plunges into the role of the woman in relationship to her husband and by extension, the church.

This “error” in translation, deliberate or otherwise (the human factor, I would term it) was subsequently used in the church and culture to foster an extremely low view of women, often bordering on abusive. All supported by the Scriptures and enthusiastically endorsed by the male patriarchy of the church and society.

Does this work?

Kind regards,

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 8th, 2008

Maybe someone should do an article on the authority of Scripture and discuss the terms we’re using here (inerrancy, manuscripts, autographs, etc.). I would love to see the different points of view.
Geoff, not to beat a dead horse, but it still seems to me that what you’re referring to are errors in translation. Am I right? I’m still not so sure you’ve answered my question regarding the autographs.

Phil on July 8th, 2008

Phil,

Its all the same thing.

The Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, Aramic. Not Russian. Not English.

To transmit that truth they first needed to be translated from the mind of God through the minds (and fingers) of the authors on the various books of the bible into Hebrew, Greek…whatever. Then into Latin, for the most part (a dead language now, I want to point out)…then into 16th century English, then 17th century English, then 18th century English, then….and on it goes.

How many translations do you think took place from the original Hebrew and Greek “autograph” of the Old and New Testaments to Eugene Peterson’s “the Message”?

Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 9th, 2008

Not sure its the same thing.

“To transmit that truth they first needed to be translated from the mind of God through the minds (and fingers) of the authors on the various books of the bible into Hebrew, Greek…whatever.”

Stopping right there… if we still had those - would they be inerrant? I’m not interested in the Message translation, I’m trying to get at something more fundamental.

Phil on July 9th, 2008

Phil,

But isn’t that the point - we don’t still have those, do we?

Define your use of the term “inerrant” and I’ll be happy to continue counting angels on a pinhead with you
Geoff

Geoff Ryan on July 9th, 2008

if i may, i’d like to offer some observations to the discussion pre-errancy derailment, particularly dion’s comment and john clifton’s response.

to start, i agree with john that there is a difference between condemning one’s neighbour and reaching a conclusion based on biblical truth. if i know my friend has no relationship with Jesus, and if I believe Jesus is the only way to God, then it’s logical to conclude that he isn’t going to be spending eternity with God — in other words, hell. (i’ll just leave it at that and avoid walking into another discussion on the existence and precise attributes of hell, thankyou:-) there are of course Christians who too swiftly conclude that others are bound for hell, basing their conclusions on superficial observations (apparently sinful habits, dress, even race) rather than on actual knowledge about their spiritual journeys. those kinds of pronouncements i would say are the judgments we are to avoid. but the friends we know well, who we know do not know Christ, who perhaps even actively reject him? i think it creates a great deal of cognitive dissonance to say we can’t draw conclusions about their eternal destinies. at least my brain can’t wrap around not drawing a conclusion. of course, it is ultimately up to God to decide each of our destinies, and i sincerely hope he finds a way to intervene in the lives of those who didn’t choose Jesus in their earthly lifetimes, but i also believe that God will not contradict himself in order to do that. so. there’s a part of me that desperately wants to embrace some version of universalism, but it would be intellectually dishonest given what i hold to be true.

but i must admit, i don’t think i have ever been cut to the heart contemplating the eternal destinies of my non-Christian friends. and i’ve realized i harbour a lot of guilt over that fact, wondering: “does that mean i am not a compassionate person? does that mean my relationships are shallow? do i really love my friends, or are these feelings of attachment just illusory?” guilt, because in my lifetime in the church i have heard countless impassioned speakers asserting the urgency of missions and evangelism by simply appealing to “people are going to hell!!” as if that was the most and/or only compelling reason why missions and evangelism are important. i have a hard time agreeing with that. perhaps it’s because the eternal is too vast or too mysterious a concept for me to grasp. it’s just too abstract. i am much more grieved when i think about the absence of Jesus in the lives of my friends in the here and now. i can see what it is doing to them, the sorrow it brings, the brokenness it wreaks in their relationships, the empty pursuits it drives them towards. and the more i get to know Jesus–in THIS lifetime, while i am alive on THIS earth–the more i want my friends to know Jesus NOW, for the sake of their present lives. i think that is a healthier starting point, a more honest impetus for evangelism and mission than contemplation of some future state that we really don’t have a clear picture of.

grace on July 11th, 2008

Hi Grace,
I hope you’re having a wonderful time in Cebu. It’s so beautiful there.
Thanks for bringing this conversation back on track. I’m not with you on your 2nd paragraph at all (except that I am not a universalist either), but sure am with you on your last one.
We go completely off the rails once we begin speculating about someone’s eternal destiny. It’s not ours to do. (I must admit, the only times I’m given over to that speculation is in regards to those who claim Christ as saviour with their mouths but their lives do nothing to bear witness to that claim. I confess I’m wrong in doing that too)

We tell our friends about Christ, and we long passionately for them to meet Him, for the reasons you’ve outlined in your last paragraph. I am convinced that the reason we don’t have ‘evangelistic zeal’ is for the same reasons you again have outlined. We’ve far too often made conversion about ‘pie in the sky when we die’ rather than a ‘here and now’ experience of love, joy and peace from being in communion with the creator and preserver of all things. That’s what makes me want to share my faith with others, and it makes it oh so much more believable and tangible and, dare I say, relevant to my friends.
Dion

Dion Oxford on July 11th, 2008

Ditto on the thanks for bringing things back on track, Grace
And thanks for the honesty. I too haven’t ever been cut to the heart about the eternal destiny of my friends. And this does give rise to guilt, deservedly. Someone I respect once said to me: “If we truly believe in the existence of endless punishment, then surely we should be willing to crawl the length of the country over broken glass in order to remove just one person from that possibility.”. I don’t feel like that now, but I think if I had some concept of what that eternity is like I would be more motivated and ‘aggressive’ in my evangelism. I regularly pray for that.

So I agree that my current motivation is change in the here and now. As Dion points out, it is more relevant and comprehensible for the unsaved as well. I would disagree that lack of zeal in evangelism comes as a result of the motivation being the everlasting. Rather, I think a lack of understanding of the seriousness and gravity of our eternal soul has contributed. Booth warned us about that.

I still disagree that it is wrong to speculate about a person’s eternal destiny. I do not believe it is arrogant. I cannot be convinced that we have no interest in it either. If we are in the business of getting souls saved, we need to have some awareness of the state of things. I’m not talking about small-minded gossiping and finger-pointing, rather basing conclusions on the standard scripture provides. Grace, you talked about that in the first paragraph.

It has to be recognised that the soul is not some abstraction. Rather it is what must be saved from the present nullity of life without Christ, and also from the sheer terror of what may come about in the eternal. I think the two are very much intertwined. Perhaps our focus needs to be a balance of both aspects.

Much of the joy of my own experience of Christ comes from an assurance of eternal salvation. Its just amazing.

John Clifton on July 11th, 2008

Sound and Fury

1929 (in 1,929 words) 1 Josh Garrington
5 ways to improve SA Worship 13 Ken Smith, Peter, Ken D.
Officer Morale - What's wrong? 7 Roy Stephens, Stuart, Mark Braye
The (Shooting?), Silver Star 6 John, Eleanor Burne-Jones, Eleanor Burne-Jones
What might have been 5 Eleanor Burne-Jones, Terry Camsey, Graeme Randall

Risky talk

Related posts:

32 Comments to Risky talk

Leave a comment

Categories

Sound and Fury