I have been thinking about corporate worship. My thoughts have been centered around the idea of how best we can organize our worship on Sunday morning. What is the best way to organize a God glorifying, Christ exalting, Holy Spirit filling worship service? Well here is a rough outline of what I would like to see accomplished.
1.) The true Gospel needs to saturate the service.
2.) Christ' Lordship needs to be a prevalent motif.
3.) Prayer should take place, at the very least, before, during and toward the end of the service.
4.) Pastoral prayer for the congregation should apply to the congregation and be thought out before hand but done with flexibility.
5.) Music should have traditional hymns but arranged in a contemporary way and newly written songs. This allows the music to be culturally relevant yet still helps Christians understand the unity they have with believers of past ages. Some of the songs done in the service would be happy and there would be clapping. Other songs would be solemn. Too often services go from one extreme to the other. In the Psalms we find that there are a number of different emotional postures. Services might also incorporate psalms set to music but arranged in a contemporary manner.
6.) Worship service should have contemporary songs that are theologically accurate and that are centered around God.
7.) There should be a lot of scripture. It would be nice to see scripture selection done in a way that incorporates a biblical theological method. Biblical Theology in a technical sense is the study of the unity of the scriptures. So how this applies is that scripture passages from all over the bible, both Old and New would relate to the main theme of the sermon. They would be read at different parts of the service. However the opening scripture would be based around an attribute of God and/or an action of God. That is how the service would begin. There would probably be three, four or five scripture passages read during the service. Preferably each quarter of the service would have a passage read. The last passage would be the main text for the sermon. The many scripture reading would help impress upon the congregation the importance of the word of God. It would also show that the service is centered around God in that we place so much importance on Gods very words.
8.) The ordinances would be taken toward the end of the service every Sunday.
9.) Preaching would be Christ centered expository preaching as the norm. Topical preaching would be done on special occasions (national tragedy, etc) and also to teach major doctrines. For instance after preaching the book of Philippians the teaching elder might do a series on the doctrine of sanctification. Preaching should be biblical, theological and explicitly applicable.
Anyhow these are some of the ideas I have.
Written by Stephen Stanford
Friday, October 24, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Book Review: According to Plan
According to Plan: The unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. By Graeme Goldsworthy
Introduction
The bible is a collection of books with a variety of characters that existed over a long period of time. Some times we might think of the bible as simply Gods instruction manual for our life, but with so much diversity in the historical-chronological placement of the characters and the multiform locations how do we find any coherence and unity to apply the text of scripture to our lives. It is common place for many Christians to be confused on how the Old Testament relates to their lives. For instance, one might wonder how the story of the exodus relates to a non-Jewish Christian in 2008. Graeme Goldsworthy takes up the task of Biblical Theology. Biblical Theology in the technical or academic sense is the study of the bibles unity. In According to Plan he sets out to find the unifying elements between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Structure
The book is split into four parts. The first part is entitle “Biblical Theology- Why?” In this section he sets out to inform us as to why Biblical Theology is necessary. He argues that Biblical Theology as a methodological approach helps us deal with a number of theological problems that occur as we read the text of scripture. Also, he argues that Biblical Theology helps us interpret the Old Testament properly. Moreover, biblical theology helps us interpret problematic passages. By understanding the grand narrative of scripture we can interpret the problematic particular parts.
The second part is entitled “Biblical Theology- How?” This part really deals with the epistemological basis for our ability to do Biblical Theology. In this section he explains the various theological disciplines that we use to know scripture. Then he looks at how the Christian world view informs our presuppositional basis for interpreting scripture. He also looks at the implications of Christ interpreting the Old Testament and how that informs out understanding of the grand theme that runs from genesis to revelation.
The third part is entitled “Biblical Theology- What?” This section is the largest of the four. In this section he goes through the main sections of the bible and shows how they relate individually to the flow of redemptive history. For instance, how does the covenant made with King David build upon the covenants of Sinai and with Abraham? Another way of looking at the question is: How does the history of the bible relate to the overall theme of the bible?
The fourth section is entitled “Biblical Theology- Where?” In this section Goldsworthy shows the reader how to do biblical theology. He lets the reader see how to take a topic and then look at that topic through the lenses of the redemptive history of the bible.
Response
The book was very helpful in many was. His discussion of the exodus account was particularly interesting. He helped me meditate about how God, in his sovereignty, often will set up the redemptive context in ways that man can only credit God for the accomplishment of redemption. Abraham had to trust that God would provide an heir even when physically it looked impossible. So also,
This is particularly what he has does even with us. We are children of Abraham (Gal 3:7) but, like the nation of Israel was not chosen because of its wealth or the greatness of its numbers so also we as individuals were not chosen because of our inherent goodness or decision making abilities (Rom 9:11-18). Just like
Use for Ministry
I think that this book will be very useful for anyone who seeks to understand the scriptures in their entirety. This book will be particularly helpful for those who want to see the deep significance of the Old Testament narratives. As for those, like myself, who desire to preach and teach Gods word. It will be particularly helpful as I seek to prepare sermons on the Old Testament. Moreover, it will be helpful for me as I prepare sermons so that I can relate the Old Testament narrative to its ultimate telos, the Gospel.
Written by Stephen Stanford
Monday, October 6, 2008
Evangelistic Opportunities
In the last post I mentioned three ways that we can engage people in evangelistic conversation. We should be opinionated (in the way that I described in the previous post), inquisitive and compassionate. Several good comments were added in response by others. Now, I want to think of a few ways that we can create opportunities for conversations about the gospel. We are around the unbelieving all the time, and if not we should make it a point to spend time with the unbeliever. The fact is that wherever we are we have the opportunity to evangelize, at work, at play and at church. Yes, even at church. Not everyone is converted there, and besides we ought to speak of God's word often with those at church.
At work we can, and I think, ought to evangelize. The mere fact that there may be consequences is not sufficient to excuse us, for it is not great than the commission from Christ. I don't mean to say that the consequences are not significant; they should be considered, but they are not more important than God's command. It should also be remembered that evangelizing those at work need not be all at once, but done gradually. It will come about that people will discuss what they believe and why, an opportunity is presented at that time. Share what you believe, and connect it to the gospel which is your reason. Gain their respect as much as possible be open to opportunities. Evangelism is not something that we do at a certain time and in certain places. Use the ideas discussed in the previous post at work.
The most basic idea I have for evangelism is to get involved in something that you are interested in where there will be unbelievers. Examples of this are abundant, I have heard of a pastor that joined a rowing team in order to evangelize, another person uses a book club and another befriends those on the bus. Do you like music? Join a music club. Do you like sports? Join a team, invite people over from work. Meet people with common interests and use that as a vehicle for creating opportunities for evangelistic conversations.
Another idea is to start evangelizing the people around you. Do you live in an apartment? Talk to your neighbors. Do you go out to eat? Become a regular at a local restaurant and befriend the workers. Be friendly.
Some less popular methods are still valid. Handing out tracts and preaching to groups. I recommend that the latter be done in an environment that facilitates this. Say in formal debates, in meetings and classrooms. If your a student, make it clear what the gospel is and correct the ignorance of unbelievers appropriately. I knew an RUF intern that regularly attended the UT atheist club meetings. There he made his belief known and made friendships with the people involved. By the end of the year they have decided to put on a debate to which atheists and rufers were invited. After the debate they went to eat and talk. Out of this I remember hearing of fruitful conversations. This is perhaps one of the best examples I know of evangelism. In regards to tract evangelism, the point is not so much to be effective in a singular moment, but to spread information about the truth as much as possible. It is basically advertising. Believe it or not people learn things form the media and its advertising. Advertising is an excellent way for us to spread the knowledge of the truth. Using brief, but well thought out arguments about christianity can be useful. Spread them around whether you talk to a person or not, it is likely that someone will ready it and learn something.
This are some ideas that I have thought about, though they are not entirely my own. I would like to mention a few things as a side note. Whenever we talk about evangelism, especially relationship evangelism it is important to remember that the way act and live is exceedingly important. It will show how much we really believe in Jesus and Love him. Our passion can be seen. It also means that part of setting a good example is being honest about our imperfection and sin. Believe it or not sinners will see us sin (they may hold it against us or think that it is okay), but rather that excuse ourselves or deny things, or stand proud or whatever we do, we should use it as an opportunity to explain the gospel. We are sinners, they are sinners and both need the forgiveness of Christ. Tell them about the promise of the Spirit who does his sanctifying work. We can not avoid unbelievers seeing us sin, so use it as an opportunity to explain the gospel when possible. Obviously that won't always be possible, but we must do what we can. And of course, remember that you should live as uprightly as possible because you love Christ and you will faithfully represent him in this way. We must not forget that representing christ in our action is not the gospel, and that it must be coupled with speaking the word of truth. Finally, I want to remind the reader of what has been on my heart. We will neither pursue nor see evangelistic opportunities, nor be ready with the gospel, nor able to set a good example if we are not in Prayer and bible study and most of all if we are not loving and dwelling on Christ as first and foremost in our lives.
I hope that these ideas are helpful to everyone. Let me know what you think, I really appreciated and enjoyed the comments that were made on the other post.
At work we can, and I think, ought to evangelize. The mere fact that there may be consequences is not sufficient to excuse us, for it is not great than the commission from Christ. I don't mean to say that the consequences are not significant; they should be considered, but they are not more important than God's command. It should also be remembered that evangelizing those at work need not be all at once, but done gradually. It will come about that people will discuss what they believe and why, an opportunity is presented at that time. Share what you believe, and connect it to the gospel which is your reason. Gain their respect as much as possible be open to opportunities. Evangelism is not something that we do at a certain time and in certain places. Use the ideas discussed in the previous post at work.
The most basic idea I have for evangelism is to get involved in something that you are interested in where there will be unbelievers. Examples of this are abundant, I have heard of a pastor that joined a rowing team in order to evangelize, another person uses a book club and another befriends those on the bus. Do you like music? Join a music club. Do you like sports? Join a team, invite people over from work. Meet people with common interests and use that as a vehicle for creating opportunities for evangelistic conversations.
Another idea is to start evangelizing the people around you. Do you live in an apartment? Talk to your neighbors. Do you go out to eat? Become a regular at a local restaurant and befriend the workers. Be friendly.
Some less popular methods are still valid. Handing out tracts and preaching to groups. I recommend that the latter be done in an environment that facilitates this. Say in formal debates, in meetings and classrooms. If your a student, make it clear what the gospel is and correct the ignorance of unbelievers appropriately. I knew an RUF intern that regularly attended the UT atheist club meetings. There he made his belief known and made friendships with the people involved. By the end of the year they have decided to put on a debate to which atheists and rufers were invited. After the debate they went to eat and talk. Out of this I remember hearing of fruitful conversations. This is perhaps one of the best examples I know of evangelism. In regards to tract evangelism, the point is not so much to be effective in a singular moment, but to spread information about the truth as much as possible. It is basically advertising. Believe it or not people learn things form the media and its advertising. Advertising is an excellent way for us to spread the knowledge of the truth. Using brief, but well thought out arguments about christianity can be useful. Spread them around whether you talk to a person or not, it is likely that someone will ready it and learn something.
This are some ideas that I have thought about, though they are not entirely my own. I would like to mention a few things as a side note. Whenever we talk about evangelism, especially relationship evangelism it is important to remember that the way act and live is exceedingly important. It will show how much we really believe in Jesus and Love him. Our passion can be seen. It also means that part of setting a good example is being honest about our imperfection and sin. Believe it or not sinners will see us sin (they may hold it against us or think that it is okay), but rather that excuse ourselves or deny things, or stand proud or whatever we do, we should use it as an opportunity to explain the gospel. We are sinners, they are sinners and both need the forgiveness of Christ. Tell them about the promise of the Spirit who does his sanctifying work. We can not avoid unbelievers seeing us sin, so use it as an opportunity to explain the gospel when possible. Obviously that won't always be possible, but we must do what we can. And of course, remember that you should live as uprightly as possible because you love Christ and you will faithfully represent him in this way. We must not forget that representing christ in our action is not the gospel, and that it must be coupled with speaking the word of truth. Finally, I want to remind the reader of what has been on my heart. We will neither pursue nor see evangelistic opportunities, nor be ready with the gospel, nor able to set a good example if we are not in Prayer and bible study and most of all if we are not loving and dwelling on Christ as first and foremost in our lives.
I hope that these ideas are helpful to everyone. Let me know what you think, I really appreciated and enjoyed the comments that were made on the other post.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Evangelistic Conversation
Lately, I have been thinking about evangelism. I haven't been thinking about the specific content of our message; I have been thinking about how to do evangelism. What do we do that we consider evangelism. Wherever Jesus and Paul went they evangelized. Books and sermons analyzing John 4 and Acts 17 can be found in abundance and they are great examples of the masters at their work. First, I think that evangelism is most affective when it comes from the overflow of the heart. When we are familiar with the scripture and have been wrestling with it we are far better prepared to evangelize. Understanding is of great importance, and so is personal application. Having the gospel close to our hearts and fresh in our minds makes us ready to evangelize. So, that is what sets the stage for evangelism, but what about doing it? Ideas are endless, churches plan visitations and work at soup kitchens and various ministries, like campus ministries,tract evangelism and helping internationals. At some point I have done most of these, and I like them. But what I really want to consider is what should be the most common form of evangelism, simple personal evangelism. If every Christian was involved in the above ministries, I still don't think that we would see the results that we would hope to see. Personal evangelism, then, is the most important for the lay Christian. Lets consider conversing about the gospel. How do you start a conversation?
When virtually any issue comes up, political, social, emotional, intellectual, etc., there is an opening. Giving your opinion on a issue, and state the Christian motive behind that. This is applying our christian worldview to the issue so that others see it and can consider it. Of course, this means we had better think about things beforehand. Making it explicit allows people to connect it and you to Christianity. People can and will disagree with you, but as time goes on they will (if the relationship is long lasting) be able to see a comprehensive worldview, and rationale. When people see the rationale, it gives them more reason to consider it. The goal is for them to be informed about what you believe and be challenged by it. Avoid starting an argument, state what you believe and why, if the conversation is with a friend you will have more opportunities to discuss it. If someone starts arguing with you about your position, give a defense and make it clear that there is a fundamental reason for the disagreement, namely that you are a Christian, but don't continue arguing. The idea is, don't start it but don't fear it.
Another suggestion is to be inquisitive, ask questions, let people tell you what they think. This shows interest and respect, so don't be condescending. If their position is lame they will reveal that. Learn from them, and hopefully they will start asking you questions too. Be prepared to answer questions and defend against attacks.
The third thing is to be compassionate. Listen to their struggles and show interest. Listening shows respect and wins trust. If appropriate ask them questions that allow them to think about things, and when you can give advice be sure that you show its connection to the gospel. When we do this we show an ordered rationale that rightfully becomes associated with Christianity and not our own wisdom. In compassion we can be most winsome to those in need and most offensive to the angry. But it is helpful for both to see that Christ is compassionate, and just. The fact is that when they reject it they'll know in their hearts that you are right.
So, their are three things to keep in mind: be opinionated, be inquisitive, be compassionate. None of these will make a difference if not connected explicitly to the gospel. Assuming that people will think that you do things because you are a believer is a bad idea. Let them know the reason and the rationale for your action or belief. This shows that you are conscious of it and that you are passionate about it (you really believe it!). Unbelievers don't understand Christians and don't piece things together correctly, which is understandable, so be explicit about how things work. All of this assumes that you are thinking about how things work and are prepared.
There are some other things I really wanted to mention in addition to this, but I will have to save it for another post. In that post I will talk more about what I mean by personal evangelism and creating opportunities for it. Let me know what you think of my ideas, tell me yours I am interested in finding out what you think.
by Samuel Gantt
When virtually any issue comes up, political, social, emotional, intellectual, etc., there is an opening. Giving your opinion on a issue, and state the Christian motive behind that. This is applying our christian worldview to the issue so that others see it and can consider it. Of course, this means we had better think about things beforehand. Making it explicit allows people to connect it and you to Christianity. People can and will disagree with you, but as time goes on they will (if the relationship is long lasting) be able to see a comprehensive worldview, and rationale. When people see the rationale, it gives them more reason to consider it. The goal is for them to be informed about what you believe and be challenged by it. Avoid starting an argument, state what you believe and why, if the conversation is with a friend you will have more opportunities to discuss it. If someone starts arguing with you about your position, give a defense and make it clear that there is a fundamental reason for the disagreement, namely that you are a Christian, but don't continue arguing. The idea is, don't start it but don't fear it.
Another suggestion is to be inquisitive, ask questions, let people tell you what they think. This shows interest and respect, so don't be condescending. If their position is lame they will reveal that. Learn from them, and hopefully they will start asking you questions too. Be prepared to answer questions and defend against attacks.
The third thing is to be compassionate. Listen to their struggles and show interest. Listening shows respect and wins trust. If appropriate ask them questions that allow them to think about things, and when you can give advice be sure that you show its connection to the gospel. When we do this we show an ordered rationale that rightfully becomes associated with Christianity and not our own wisdom. In compassion we can be most winsome to those in need and most offensive to the angry. But it is helpful for both to see that Christ is compassionate, and just. The fact is that when they reject it they'll know in their hearts that you are right.
So, their are three things to keep in mind: be opinionated, be inquisitive, be compassionate. None of these will make a difference if not connected explicitly to the gospel. Assuming that people will think that you do things because you are a believer is a bad idea. Let them know the reason and the rationale for your action or belief. This shows that you are conscious of it and that you are passionate about it (you really believe it!). Unbelievers don't understand Christians and don't piece things together correctly, which is understandable, so be explicit about how things work. All of this assumes that you are thinking about how things work and are prepared.
There are some other things I really wanted to mention in addition to this, but I will have to save it for another post. In that post I will talk more about what I mean by personal evangelism and creating opportunities for it. Let me know what you think of my ideas, tell me yours I am interested in finding out what you think.
by Samuel Gantt
Thursday, September 18, 2008
9 Marks Ministries Weekender
Right now I am in Washington D.C. I am attending a small pastoral conference put on by 9 marks ministries. 9 marks ministries is a ministry that promotes biblical ecclesiology. One of the important aspects of Baptist ecclesiology that they have helped to recover is the plurality of elders. Pastor Mark Dever is the pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church. He is probably the most influential ecclesiologist in Baptist life today. He has written extensively on the theology of the church, Baptist History, puritan history and practical theology. He hold a master of Divinity at Gordon-Conwell Theological seminary, a Master of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the greatest seminary ever!!!) and a PhD in ecclesiastical history from Cambridge University. Academically he is in a league of his own. Yet, he is one of the most light hearted guys I have ever met. He is constantly making jokes. This weekend I am staying in his home. I have never been in a home with as many books as his home. Right now next to my bed are books from the 19th century on Baptist history!
Today I had a two hour break between lectures so I decided to walk a few blocks over to the Capitol building. Both the Church and our nations capitol are in D.C.'s historical district. All the buildings are from the 19th century and are kept up. There are little cafes on the side of the street. I had fun except I was not with Kym. Our nations capital is so much different than I thought it was from TV. The city is much more busy. The distance between the Supreme Court building, the Library of Congress, and the White House is much shorter than I expected.
Any how I am enjoying my stay here in DC.
written by Stephen Stanford
Today I had a two hour break between lectures so I decided to walk a few blocks over to the Capitol building. Both the Church and our nations capitol are in D.C.'s historical district. All the buildings are from the 19th century and are kept up. There are little cafes on the side of the street. I had fun except I was not with Kym. Our nations capital is so much different than I thought it was from TV. The city is much more busy. The distance between the Supreme Court building, the Library of Congress, and the White House is much shorter than I expected.
Any how I am enjoying my stay here in DC.
written by Stephen Stanford
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Bible Translation
What Bible translations do you use for bible study? Yesterday I bought the new NLT study bible. I am loving it. The study notes cover a lot of material... it is impressive. I cannot wait till the ESV study bible comes out. Now there are 4 basic translational philosophies.
First, there is the paraphrase. The paraphrase is not really a translation in the strictest sense of the word. Basically the author of the paraphrase attempts to retell not translate what the original text says. Examples of a paraphrases are the Living Bible of the 1970 and the Message. I will bypass discussion over these paraphrase because I question how useful they really are for serious bible study.
Second, there is the dynamic equivalence ( I will call this DE). DE translations are probably the most popular. The NLT, NIV, TNIV are examples. The DE translation seek to translate thought for thought rather than word for word. The advantage of this kind of translation is that it helps modern readers understand the orignal text when phrases do not translates well literally. The disadvantage is that there is not always a consistency in word usage. Another problem is that sometime they do not use important theological words.
Third, there is the literal or essentially literal. Essentially literal and literal are actually two different categories but we will throw both of these into one category for our discussion. The advantage of this kind of translation is that it sticks, as best as possible to the original words of the biblical text. Also there is a consistency of translated words. There is also less interpretation over the meaning of the text, although there is obviously still some. The disadvantage is that the translation does not always fit within normal English word usage. Another problem is that idiomatic expressions are sometimes not given in English with an equivalent expression. That can actually be good and bad. The term literal translation can be kind of misleading. It is kinda like the term decalf coffee. No translation is strictly literal. If it was it would be unintelligible to read at times. Examples of a literal translation are the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version, The New English Bible, the King James Version and the New King James Version.
Fourth, there is a new translational philosophy called the optimal equivalence. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is an optimal equivalence translation. The optimal equivalence translation seeks the best of the literal translation and the best of the dynamic equivalence. However, because it seeks to do what both the literal and the DE does it also has the weakness of both to more or less degree. I also think that the ESV is more or less an optimal equivalence translation. It leans more toward the literal translation while the HCSB may move more toward the DE.
Now which translation philosophy is the best? This has often the cause of controversy. Some say that DE is the way to go others say that literal translation is the best way to go. I think that they are both good. I think everybody needs a copy of at least one from either translation philosophy. The ESV is my main translation. This is because the word for word translation allows you to pay attention to word consistency. Also I think that the word for word translation correspond to expository preaching better than a thought for thought translation. Also, It allows you to see the translation with less interpretation into the text. Second translation that I go to is the HCSB. Third is the NLT and fourth is the TNIV (todays new international version). So as you can see when I study a passage I look at all types of translations. It is good to use at least two translations that you know will differ in how they are translated. This allows more objectivity as you approach the text.
When trying to find a translation to use remember this: all translation are just that, translations. If you want to be exact and precise you will have to learn the original languages. There are all kinds of online classes that are available. We live in a pretty awesome day in time.
One of the most important considerations when picking a translation to use is: what is the textual basis for the translation. When translations are made it is important to use the most accurate manuscript. For instance the NIV uses the USB3 while the TNIV uses the USB4. The USB4 is a more accurate text so if you use a translation you probably would rather go with the TNIV rather than the NIV. That does not mean the TNIV is perfect it just means it is translated with better manuscripts.
Anyhow, what translations do you use and in what order? What are your thoughts on translational philosophy?
My greek professor quotes an Italian proverb "traditorre traditore" (which I am not quite sure I spelled it right) but basically it means translators are traitors. The words sound exactly alike. The point is that no translation is perfect.
written by Stephen Stanford
First, there is the paraphrase. The paraphrase is not really a translation in the strictest sense of the word. Basically the author of the paraphrase attempts to retell not translate what the original text says. Examples of a paraphrases are the Living Bible of the 1970 and the Message. I will bypass discussion over these paraphrase because I question how useful they really are for serious bible study.
Second, there is the dynamic equivalence ( I will call this DE). DE translations are probably the most popular. The NLT, NIV, TNIV are examples. The DE translation seek to translate thought for thought rather than word for word. The advantage of this kind of translation is that it helps modern readers understand the orignal text when phrases do not translates well literally. The disadvantage is that there is not always a consistency in word usage. Another problem is that sometime they do not use important theological words.
Third, there is the literal or essentially literal. Essentially literal and literal are actually two different categories but we will throw both of these into one category for our discussion. The advantage of this kind of translation is that it sticks, as best as possible to the original words of the biblical text. Also there is a consistency of translated words. There is also less interpretation over the meaning of the text, although there is obviously still some. The disadvantage is that the translation does not always fit within normal English word usage. Another problem is that idiomatic expressions are sometimes not given in English with an equivalent expression. That can actually be good and bad. The term literal translation can be kind of misleading. It is kinda like the term decalf coffee. No translation is strictly literal. If it was it would be unintelligible to read at times. Examples of a literal translation are the New American Standard Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version, The New English Bible, the King James Version and the New King James Version.
Fourth, there is a new translational philosophy called the optimal equivalence. The Holman Christian Standard Bible is an optimal equivalence translation. The optimal equivalence translation seeks the best of the literal translation and the best of the dynamic equivalence. However, because it seeks to do what both the literal and the DE does it also has the weakness of both to more or less degree. I also think that the ESV is more or less an optimal equivalence translation. It leans more toward the literal translation while the HCSB may move more toward the DE.
Now which translation philosophy is the best? This has often the cause of controversy. Some say that DE is the way to go others say that literal translation is the best way to go. I think that they are both good. I think everybody needs a copy of at least one from either translation philosophy. The ESV is my main translation. This is because the word for word translation allows you to pay attention to word consistency. Also I think that the word for word translation correspond to expository preaching better than a thought for thought translation. Also, It allows you to see the translation with less interpretation into the text. Second translation that I go to is the HCSB. Third is the NLT and fourth is the TNIV (todays new international version). So as you can see when I study a passage I look at all types of translations. It is good to use at least two translations that you know will differ in how they are translated. This allows more objectivity as you approach the text.
When trying to find a translation to use remember this: all translation are just that, translations. If you want to be exact and precise you will have to learn the original languages. There are all kinds of online classes that are available. We live in a pretty awesome day in time.
One of the most important considerations when picking a translation to use is: what is the textual basis for the translation. When translations are made it is important to use the most accurate manuscript. For instance the NIV uses the USB3 while the TNIV uses the USB4. The USB4 is a more accurate text so if you use a translation you probably would rather go with the TNIV rather than the NIV. That does not mean the TNIV is perfect it just means it is translated with better manuscripts.
Anyhow, what translations do you use and in what order? What are your thoughts on translational philosophy?
My greek professor quotes an Italian proverb "traditorre traditore" (which I am not quite sure I spelled it right) but basically it means translators are traitors. The words sound exactly alike. The point is that no translation is perfect.
written by Stephen Stanford
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Incarnational ministry?
How are we to minister to the world? Do we present a social gospel, a social and spiritual gospel or a spiritual one. Who should we imitate, Jesus or Paul? Perhaps, I should say should Paul's or Jesus' example of ministry be the basis of ours?
I think that the message we preach is most certainly spiritual over all the other options, despite the fact that it has effects on society. Christ's ministry on earth was not primarily social, for he did not come incarnate to relieve the temporal poverty of the Jews, but to the fulfill the Law and sacrificial acts of the High Priest as explained in Hebrews. His ministry to the poor was for their eternal salvation, as seen in his teachings which emphasized Love of God, obedience, and the danger of hell. He ministered to the poor, because the were humble, knowing they are sinners (Matt. 9;12). His goal was not the alleviation of poverty (Matt. 26;11), but the the proclamation that the kingdom is at hand(Matt 4;17) and proving his authority as messiah through miracles (Jh. 14;11). John's version of the the Great commission does not emphasize a social gospel but rather that we are given authority through the Holy Spirit and are to proclaim the kingdom (Jh. 20;21). We are called to suffer like Christ for the gospel ministry (Matt. 5;11, Jh 15;20, Phil 1;29).
The stated reasons make clear that Jesus ministry to the poor was spiritual. The Jewish context was special in that they had the Law and the promises and the word. He went to the Jew, not the gentile and rejected political involvement. Throughout Acts we see Christ proclaim as savior and the apostles as witnesses. It is Paul that is specifically sent to the gentiles and Paul that says he is all things to all people (1 Cor. 9;19-23). In addition to this it is Paul that sells us to be imitators of him as he is of Christ (1 Cor 4;16-17, 11;1). If then we are to imitate Christ, which we are, then we should imitate him in the way that Paul imitated Christ. We should apply his understanding of what it meant to imitate Christ. By pointing this out, I want to show that instead of looking to Christ as our example of how to minister we should look at Christ through Paul. Where Christ tells us to make disciples of the nations, Paul shows and instructs us in the way that we should do that. So, how did Paul imitate Christ? He suffered and gave up his freedoms, even privileges for effective ministry. While Christ's work with the Jews may be descriptive (an example) of a contextualized ministry, it is Paul that tells us to do that in 1 Cor. 9.
Interpreting missions and ministry through Paul will help us to better understand in what we are to imitate Christ and in what ways his ministry was truly unique. doing the reverse will undoubtedly lead to misapplications of the gospels and how we are to minister. The key to how we are to glorify God in ministry is to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11;1).
Samuel Gantt
I think that the message we preach is most certainly spiritual over all the other options, despite the fact that it has effects on society. Christ's ministry on earth was not primarily social, for he did not come incarnate to relieve the temporal poverty of the Jews, but to the fulfill the Law and sacrificial acts of the High Priest as explained in Hebrews. His ministry to the poor was for their eternal salvation, as seen in his teachings which emphasized Love of God, obedience, and the danger of hell. He ministered to the poor, because the were humble, knowing they are sinners (Matt. 9;12). His goal was not the alleviation of poverty (Matt. 26;11), but the the proclamation that the kingdom is at hand(Matt 4;17) and proving his authority as messiah through miracles (Jh. 14;11). John's version of the the Great commission does not emphasize a social gospel but rather that we are given authority through the Holy Spirit and are to proclaim the kingdom (Jh. 20;21). We are called to suffer like Christ for the gospel ministry (Matt. 5;11, Jh 15;20, Phil 1;29).
The stated reasons make clear that Jesus ministry to the poor was spiritual. The Jewish context was special in that they had the Law and the promises and the word. He went to the Jew, not the gentile and rejected political involvement. Throughout Acts we see Christ proclaim as savior and the apostles as witnesses. It is Paul that is specifically sent to the gentiles and Paul that says he is all things to all people (1 Cor. 9;19-23). In addition to this it is Paul that sells us to be imitators of him as he is of Christ (1 Cor 4;16-17, 11;1). If then we are to imitate Christ, which we are, then we should imitate him in the way that Paul imitated Christ. We should apply his understanding of what it meant to imitate Christ. By pointing this out, I want to show that instead of looking to Christ as our example of how to minister we should look at Christ through Paul. Where Christ tells us to make disciples of the nations, Paul shows and instructs us in the way that we should do that. So, how did Paul imitate Christ? He suffered and gave up his freedoms, even privileges for effective ministry. While Christ's work with the Jews may be descriptive (an example) of a contextualized ministry, it is Paul that tells us to do that in 1 Cor. 9.
Interpreting missions and ministry through Paul will help us to better understand in what we are to imitate Christ and in what ways his ministry was truly unique. doing the reverse will undoubtedly lead to misapplications of the gospels and how we are to minister. The key to how we are to glorify God in ministry is to imitate Paul as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11;1).
Samuel Gantt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)