Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Now that it's over . . .

The election is done.

This simplifies our lives in a couple ways.

The first way is we don't have to listen to campaigning for the next two years or so.

The second way is that no matter who gets elected, the expectation is the same for what we need to do:

1 Timothy 2:1–4 (NIV)
2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.  

It's pretty simple: for all those in authority.  So whether, Obama or Romney won, the imperative stands.  Also people are often confused about the will of God.  Well, Paul makes it clear here that praying for those in authority is good and pleases God.  Sounds like the will of God to me.

Not a long blog post, but it doesn't need to be.  Pray for the President.  Pray for our Congress.  Pray for our Supreme Court.  Pray as far down the ladder as you are willing and able.  They all need the prayer and you'll be pleasing God in doing so.  I need to please God more in this way than I tend to.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Pastoring "outside the box"

Pastor Bob Beeman is an amazing servant of Jesus Christ. He is "outside the box." Frankly, that phrase is getting old and a little over used. But he truly is "outside the box". And it's good to be outside the box if there are problems in the box. And there are. Bob looks odd. If you find it hard to listen and take him seriously because of his appearance, then close your eyes. He's truly what a pastor should be in so many ways. You don't have to agree with everything he says. You shouldn't. Bob isn't God. But he's walked with Jesus a long time. You can tell when you listen.


I'd encourage you to subscribe to him on youtube.  Or become a friend of his on Facebook so his daily videos show up on your facebook page . . . that is if you don't lose sight of him in all your "friends".  That's a topic for another day.



Friday, May 18, 2012

Save Me From Myself

Biographies / Autobiographies are very easy to read.  I like reading biographies of musicians.  Some Christians wouldn't stomach these books well.  Some legalistic types might question my salvation, or at least the quality of my walk, for reading these.  The books are filled with depravity.  But I love rock and metal music.  I'm curious about people.

The most recent one I read was Save Me From Myself by Brian "Head" Welch.  Subtitle is How I Found God, Quit Korn, Kicked Drugs, and Lived to Tell My Story.

I am not a fan of nu metal music.  I couldn't tell you a single song from Korn.  However, I've heard much about Brian's salvation over the last few years and when I saw this book at Barnes & Noble I thought I'd check out his story.

It is a wonderful narrative.  Brian's life is frankly, quite typical of rockers' lives, at least in regard to drugs.  Brian wasn't so much about sex, drugs and rock, but mostly just drugs and rock.  I am simply amazed at the punishment the human body can take and what people survive.  Please don't take that as a challenge.  I never tried a drug in my life and I'd encourage you to take that same path.

Having said that, it is good for people like Brian to tell their journeys.  People can go a long way down a dark path and yet despite how far down that path they are, God is still able to bring them back into light.

Brian's story might turn off some people because as he becomes Christian his talk sounds somewhat overly spiritual.  He seems to have become involved in a more pentecostal or charismatic circle.  He has a lot of "prophets" that talk to him in the book.  He says things like "I felt like [God] said . . . ".

He sounds like a young Christian influenced by the generalizations of how much of the Evangelical world talks.  I'm sure he sounds like that because that's probably exactly the case . . . a young Christian heavily influenced by the general ways the Evangelical world talks.

He quotes the Bible a fair amount in the second half of the book.  Mostly single verses.  Very experiential type sounding walk.  I pray that God keeps him strong and that he develops a strong walk with our triune God based on solid exegesis of the Bible.  

This book was released five years ago so I have no idea how he is doing today.

Interestingly, as I was googling about Brian, I found a video where a second Korn member, Reggie "Fieldy" Arvizo talks about himself becoming a Christian.

God is reaching rockers.  There is also Dave Mustaine and Dave Ellefson from Megadeth whose lives God has done some things with in recent years.

Sometimes the edges are a little rough.  There is some language in Brian's book.  A lot of language in Mustaine's book.  In years past I would have wondered, no, I would have judged that.  I still wonder.  However, I realize not everybody grows at the same rate.  Not everybody starts in the same place.  Some people are relatively "clean" when they come to Jesus.  At least they appear that way to us.  Others need more scrubbing.

I am simply glad that God saves rockers.  May God bless Brian Welch.  May Brian (and Reggie and Mustaine and Ellefson) continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our God and savior, Jesus Christ and may he use them to rescue others from the destructive paths these guys were going down.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Reading the Holman Christian Standard Bible

Every year I read the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice with a guide to get me through it.  Often, I try to read a Bible version/translation that I have not read before.  This year I am reading through the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

In their book How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee & Mark Strauss state that the HCSB is more literal than the NIV or NET but less so than formal translations.  Fee & Strauss look at the HCSB's self-description of "optimal equivalency" and state that it sounds a great deal like functional equivalency.

So far I am enjoying the HCSB.  That might not help a lot since I enjoy most versions.  One thing I've noticed is that the HCSB translates the tetragrammaton (the four letters representing the name of God - YHWH) as Yawheh quite often.  The HCSB doesn't do this every time, but it does it hundreds of times.  I like this move and think this would be particularly helpful in an audio version.  Then when listening one could know whether the word adonai (which is a more generic "lord" that would be used of humans) or YHWH was used in the original languages.  Many translations simply capitalize LORD.  However, if one is listening to an audio version, you can't tell if the Hebrew tetragrammaton is used or if adonai or even another term (if there is another) is used.  That being said, I don't have an audio version and the only one I could find online has lots of complaints that the music is too loud.  It would be nice if Max McLean would do the HCSB.

Some other helpful information comes from a presentation from Edward Blum.  His entire presentation is at Rick Mansfield's blog This Lamp.  Rick got permission to publish the entire presentation.  Since I have not, I will wet your appetite with a couple points and refer you to his post to read the entire thing.

Blum points out how the name of God is translated as I already mentioned that difference.  One interesting point is word count.  According to Blum, the Hebrew & Greek have a total of 545,202 words.  No English translation is apparently close.  He states the KJV has the most (out of translations he listed) with 790,676. The HCSB has the lowest with 718,943.  The next closest he listed was the NIV (1984 edition) with 726,109.  The NASB, which is supposed to be the most literal translation, has 775,861.  So the NASB has 56,918 more words than the HCSB and the KJV has 71,733 words more than the HCSB.  So if you want to cut your reading time down, read the HCSB.  That being said, the HCSB still has 173,741 more words than the Hebrew and Greek.  For those of you who think any Bible is literally "word-for-word", now you know the facts.  Translation isn't that simple.

Now being closer in word count to the original languages and having to read 50,000 words or less (give or take a couple 10,000) is nice.  However, that doesn't make a translation better ipso facto.  But it's interesting.  And I don't think a translation should add words unnecessarily.  If more words are needed to accurately convey the thought in another language then that should be done.  So I'm not grading the HCSB on this point.  I'm not able to at this time.  I am simply pointing out the word count factor.

Blum also makes a case that the HCSB has less archaic or odd words/phrases than the NIV and TNIV and less British sayings than the ESV.  Now his NIV would have been the 1984 edition.  I don't know if the NIV Committee on Bible Translation took note of this and made improvements on the 2011 NIV.  I read the 2011 NIV last year and loved it.  However, sometimes I gloss over archaic words.  I started out on the KJV and played a lot of Dungeons and Dragons as a teen and archaic words can slip by me unnoticed. This is really important though.  So many people who read the KJV don't understand what they're reading even when they think they do.  And I have noticed odd words in the NIV here and there.  Getting rid of archaic words is a good thing in my opinion.  I don't think it's a bad thing to have to grab your dictionary.  That being said, having to use it too much makes reading laborious and may cause one to give up a book.  This is not what we want in Bible translation.

I'll compare words Blum picked out between the NIV 2011 and the HCSB:


  1. Abound - NIV 18x, HCSB 3x (that word doesn't seem all that archaic to me)
  2. Alas - NIV 21x, HCSB 0x
  3. Astir - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "stirred up")
  4. Befuddled - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "confused")
  5. Bosom - NIV 4, HCSB 0
  6. Deluged - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "flooded")
  7. Kindred - NIV 0, HCSB 0 (The NIV 1984 didn't use this either.  The TNIV used it twice)
  8. Naught - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "nothing")
  9. Profligate - NIV 0, HCSB 0 (NIV 1984 and TNIV each used it once)
  10. Reckon - NIV 11, HCSB 0
  11. Rend - NIV 2, HCSB 0
  12. Self-abasement - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "humiliation")
  13. Shall - NIV 482, HCSB 0 (Ok, I can see how it's archaic.  I don't use it personally, but it's not a big deal either.)
  14. Slew - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (uses "killed")
  15. Spurn - NIV 8, HCSB 1
  16. Strode - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (marched across)
  17. Suckling - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (young)
  18. Thus - NIV 28, HCSB 0 (again, no big deal to me)
  19. Toil - NIV 35, HCSB 0
  20. To no avail - NIV 2, HCSB 1
  21. Unkempt - NIV 3, HCSB 0
  22. Unmindful - NIV 1, HCSB 0
  23. Unsandaled - NIV 1, HCSB 0
  24. Unto - NIV 1, HCSB 0
  25. Unwary - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (inexperienced)
  26. Upon - NIV 103, HCSB 4
  27. Vaunt - NIV 1 HCSB 0 (arrogantly oppose)
  28. Vilest - NIV 1, HCSB 0 (most detestable)


All that being said, and as I said I often gloss over this stuff, I wonder if anyone has a list of odd words/phrases the HCSB might have used.

So read the link I provided to Rick's post.  It's not too long and it's really very interesting.

One other thing I'll point out.  The HCSB is the only translation available in the Apologetics Study Bible and the Apologetics Study Bible for Students.  I have both.  I've read a little in the Apologetics Study Bible.  I've read a lot more in the Apologetics Study Bible for Students.  The reason is the one for students is a more current edition of the HCSB than my copy of the Apologetics Study Bible.  Both are good.  The one for students is outstanding.  Don't let the title make you think you're above it.  Many Christian adults lack the knowledge offered in the Bible for students.  No shame in being an adult and using that Bible.  I'm enjoying it (and I've been studying and reading apologetic works for over 20 years).  Sean McDowell (Josh McDowell's son) is the general editor of the students' edition.  Both Bibles have an outstanding list of contributors.


Friday, April 20, 2012

Churches That Abuse . . . by Pastor Bob

Sad, but true commentary.  Bob is right on with this.


Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Me, God and my Bible

I recently witnessed and partook in a conversation about commentaries and books in the life of the Christian.  A man was expressing concern about the place of commentaries and books in his life.  He felt that he was too prone to go to those things first in stead of allowing the "Spirit of God teach [him]".

Some comments he got included such things:
  • Nothing wrong with books but get to know the Scriptures first
  • Run what you're reading past the Holy Spirit and Scripture first
  • Most commentaries are a waste of time and just support a denominational creed
  • Commentaries are just someone's opinion, nothing more - take it with a grain of salt
I think all of these comments have an element of truth to them.  However, I think most of them are hyperbolic.

Get to know the Scriptures first.  How do we do that?  When have we reached that point where we know the Scriptures well enough to start using commentaries and books?  How do we get to know the Scriptures well without some commentaries and books?  Some might say teaching from your local church.  But aren't the pastors using commentaries in teaching you?

Run what you're reading past the Holy Spirit and Scripture first. Ok. I understand running things by the Scripture.  We should always do that.  See Acts 17:11.  How do you "run what you're reading by the Holy Spirit"?  This, in my opinion, is speaking Christianese and useless advice.  I know the Holy Spirit is our teacher according to 1 John.  So I don't dispute that.  I think all Christians generally agree on this even if they are cessatioists (not so big word that means they believe certain gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer active in the church today).  But I've never seen any teacher actually show how this works.  I am not disputing that it happens.  What does the Holy Spirit part of study begin and where does it end?  Where is it my thought process beginning and my thought process ending?

So, yes, test everything with Scripture.  Ask God to teach you in prayer and trust that he will guide you.  Take all the blame yourself for wrong ideas.

Most commentaries are a waste of time and just support a denominational creed.  This is over simplification.  Sometimes it may be true.  Sometimes it is false.  Frankly, I find that most scholars are humble.  Most of them realize they can be wrong and that they are wrong in some areas.

Commentaries are just someone's opinion, nothing more - take it with a grain of salt.  This is the worst commentary I hear.  Unfortunately, I hear this kind of idea a lot.  First, I'd like to point out that this comment itself is merely someone's opinion, nothing more.  So, I'll take it with a grain of salt.  Secondly, this is extremely arrogant.  Most commentaries and books are written by born again, Spirit filled believers.  To the one who makes this comment, what's so special about you that your "time with God" produces better ideas than what's in a book or commentary?  Thirdly, this is often false.  It's often not just someone's opinion.  Often it's truthful recording of historical data and correct exegesis of the text.

As already stated, commentaries are in many cases, if not most, written by born again, Spirit filled believers that often have more education than you and I.  It's pure pride to just push these things to the side.  Also, isn't it possible, even probable, that the subtle way the Holy Spirit is planning on teaching you is by you picking up commentary Z and reading what professor X has to say about something (or listening to it in audio form via a message or audio book)?

Commentaries are often very good, rich materials to learn from.  I've said it before and I'm saying it again.  Frankly, I think they are much better than the mush in most "devotionals".  I suggest you recycle most devotionals on the shelf and pick up a commentary and read a couple paragraphs or a page for your devotional time.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Church at Dairy Queen

I had lunch with a good friend of mine at Dairy Queen today.  In that hour or two we were there, we had a greater talk and more challenging conversation than I usually have sitting through a sermon on a Sunday morning.

As I type that paragraph, I am filled with a mixture of emotion towards it.  Part of me is glad to have a deep friend in my life like this with whom I can have such a great conversation.  Part of me is bothered that I can't just walk into a church down the street and find the same kind of edification.

I wonder as I look at Protestantism and all of the factions, is what I am doing today just part of the problem?  I really don't know.  In a sense it seems that it is.  Here I am, not in an established church, wanting to do a house church.  Part of me just wants to pick a local church that I see as being closest to the truth and joining forces with them and not being another break in the body of Christ.  I think too much about issues and doctrines to ever find anyone I agree with 100%.  It just won't happen.  Yet, I would be bothered if someone agreed with me 100% of the time.  I want someone who is a student under me to disagree somewhat.  I would be bothered if they never disagreed.  Yet, I wouldn't expect them to start a new church because of a disagreement over X or Y or P.

So what makes it worth sticking with a local church and what makes it worth starting a new thing?  I'm not sure I have the answer.

We talked about a brother who recently fell into sin. (Yes, we talked and no, it wasn't gossip.)  We talked about our own ability to fall into sin and how capable we can be of very grievous behavior ourselves.  We aren't above it.

We talked about the "new" atheism.

We talked about how as non-scholars we approach things.  Neither of us have a degree.  We're both thinking high school graduates who eat . . . I mean read a lot of books.  He and I both come from a background where as Protestants we simply accepted what we were taught at our churches.  Our churches taught X.  Then our pastors taught why non-X was false.  We accepted those ideas.  Didn't challenge them much initially.  However, both my friend and I have broken away from those foundations.  We each found an issue in which we didn't think the facts corresponded with what we were being taught.  We were Berean.

Since then, both independently and together, we have explored different beliefs inside of Christianity that differ from our traditions and sought the best advocates on all sides.  He and I aren't on the same side on all issues.  Some of the differences we have aren't exactly minor.  However, we've grown to respect differences.

When you hear a scholar say X, but you believe non-X, what is your reaction?  My friend and I have the same reaction.  We take what is said seriously.  X and non-X cannot both be true.  However, there are serious minds that love God and are born again, Spirit-filled people on both sides of almost any view.  It's not my place to be flippant just because a view other than mine is expressed and especially when held by someone a lot smarter and who has put a lot more thought into an issue than I probably have.

Let me give an example.  There is great debate in Christianity of how long ago God created the universe.  We talked about a quote from the late Gleason Archer.  Archer presents three different views for the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1.  Check out this paragraph by Archer as he explains the third view he shares in his book . . .

Yôm represents a geologic age or stage in the creative process. This was the explanation resorted to by nineteenth-century geologists who respected the authority of the Bible, notably J. W. Dawson (e.g., The Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, 1877) and James Dana (Manual of Geology, 1875). According to this view the term yôm does not necessarily signify a literal twenty-four-hour day, but is simply equivalent to “stage.” It has often been asserted that yôm could not bear this meaning, but could only have implied a literal day to the Hebrew mind according to Hebrew usage. Nevertheless, on the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Gen. 1 could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day.
Archer, G. L. (1998). A survey of Old Testament introduction (3rd. ed.].) (199). Chicago: Moody Press.

Re-read that last sentence.  Archer's conviction is that the author of Genesis, based on internal evidence (i.e. not science, but based on the text itself) could not have intended literal twenty-four-hour days.

Now I'm a little undecided on this issue.  But I lean towards some sort of progressive creation type view, i.e. billions of years, not thousands.  As a young earth proponent, how do people react to this kind of claim?  Do they ignore it as if it was never made?

Archer was a linguistic scholar.  He had no foot in the scientific community.  So claims that he wanted to be respected by the scientific community wouldn't hold water.  For the most part the scientific community would have been oblivious to Archer's existence.  He should not be ignored lightly.  Do I take seriously the claims of scholars who hold views that differ from mine?  I sure try to these days.

So we had a great time talking about how learning is humbling.

We talked about how the church needs both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  The church needs right teaching and right practice.  It seems most times one is abandoned largely at the expense of the other.  He and I have a bent towards orthodoxy.  It's our strength.  The liberal churches have a bent towards orthopraxy.  However, we need both.  And we can't merely throw a token effort at the weak area.  I need to work at this more.

Both of us are desiring to start a "church" in our local area and we are part of two different communities.  Not that far apart . . . about 20 minutes.

We probably hit on other good topics while together.  We never have enough time.  I look forward to the next time we meet.  Between DQ and my house we spent about four hours together (in case you were wondering how we talked about so many things).

So when you "go to church", what did you get challenged in last time?  Or when you go next time, ask when the service is over how you were pushed to grow.

It doesn't take a service in a church building to have "church."  Sometimes it just takes lunch with a good peer at Dairy Queen.  Whatever you do in assembling with the brothers, do it regularly.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Am I Required To Go To Church?

From my friend, Pastor Bob Beeman . . .