Around the Horn

This week is the official beginning of hope. Spring training has started, everyone is a potential World Series champion, and warmer days are just around the corner.

In honor of baseball, here are a three bases and a home run from around the blogosphere.

At first base, Ben says, “Sometimes, the Bible doesn't say everything we wish it said, even if our wishes are motivated by our desires to defend it.” This is in response to a discussion about whether or not Genesis 1-2 teaches something about the length of the creation days and weeks.

This past week, I preached from Mark 10:1-12 about marriage. A thought that I had (and probably said) rings true here. Ben is right that sometimes the Bible doesn’t say everything we wish it said. But often, it says far more than we are willing to admit, whether about creation or marriage.

I think Genesis 1-2 is pretty clear. There is really no other way that God could have communicated six successive twenty-four hour days. There are, on the other hand, much better ways to communicate long periods of time.

At second base, Mark set off a bit of a firestorm with some comments about Christ in the OT. Here’s the funny thing: I think what Mark said about separation in the OT is far more controversial than what he said about Christ in the OT. Of course, I say that in light of Mark’s helpful clarifications both in the comments there and in this subsequent post. I post my “mostly agreement” with Mark here instead of at his blog so that no one will see that I agree mostly with Mark.  There is no doubt that Christ is in the OT, in the Law and the Prophets. But I also think that there is no doubt that Christ is not nearly so omnipresent in the OT as many people seem to think. Perhaps later I will write a bit on my take on Christ in the OT, but suffice it to say that if we are going to preach the text as the text, Christ will not be preached as the meaning of the text all the time.

I think the whole “Gospel-centered preaching” from the OT is well-intended, but I fear that it adds a pious slant to old moralism, such as Dave indicates here. Interesting, a long time ago I started a post quoting the same thing Dave quotes because I was astounded that Tim Keller actually said this. I didn’t take time to transcribe it but you can read it for yourself. I think the lectures where Keller gives this illustration are excellent, and helpful in so many ways. Just don’t use his examples.

At third base, a couple of parables showed up on the internet this week, along with a complaint by someone that he couldn’t understand one of the parables. This included a demand for an apology for the parable. I think he means an explanation, but perhaps in a moment of sensus plenior, he actually means something else. I wonder if he holds Christ to the same standard, demanding an apology for His parables.

And for the home run, just when you think it can’t get any more bizarre, I happened upon a discussion about the KJV and Revelation 16:5. A commenter, ironically (or perhaps prophetically) using the handle of “Faith” says:

ANYWAY, this being the situation, the decisions of faithful translators simply ARE evidence equal to the manuscript evidence. OBJECTIVELY equal. This isn’t just an arbitrary thing I’m saying. There is very good manuscript and version support for Holy One in 16.5, including previous English versions by faithful translators, but nevertheless Beza chose against it and gave reasonable support for his decision, and the KJV translators followed him rather than the other line of evidence.

BOTH LINES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FAITHFUL TO GOD’S WORD because there is no objective way of deciding one way or the other. Beza COULD have been right in his conjecture that the verse once read as he corrected it to read. WE CAN’T KNOW.

What we learn is that manuscript evidence doesn’t matter so long as a “faithful translator” (apparently defined as someone who translated the KJV) inserted some words into the text. Of course, words inserted by someone other than a “faithful translator” don’t count. They are perversions and corruptions.

What we also learn (in what is perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip), is that two contradictory readings can both be considered “faithful to God’s word,” which destroys the whole movement this commenter is apparently trying to save.

I think what we learn most of all is that a segment of KJVOnly proponents have no clue what they are talking about, and regularly participate in and propagate beliefs and arguments that have the potential of destroying the Christian faith.

And now, in honor of spring training (and Jim Rome), I’m out.

How We Got Here

Scot McKnight links to this letter from the Presbyterian Church (USA) calling for new way to go forward.

This line sticks out to me:

How we got to this place is less important than how to move forward.

It sticks out to me because I think it misses one of the fundamental facets of change and that is asking the question, “Why are we here?”

A friend told me years ago, “Life is an accumulation of choices.”

And so it is.

We are where we are because of the choices we have made. The PC(USA) is where they are at (as described in the letter, which shows just the tip of the iceberg) because of the choices they have made.

To ignore that history, to refuse to ask how we got here, is to risk charting a course that repeats it.

If we want to be somewhere else, or go somewhere else, we have to make different choices. But until we study the choices we have made, we have no idea which ones to change because we don’t know the choices that got us here.

I liken this dilemma to current discussions about “how to move forward” in fundamentalism.

There are some, it seems, who want to ignore how we got here. They just assume it is right that we are here (wherever “here” is). And so they insist that everyone be “here” and if you are somewhere else it is because you are compromising, or at least in danger of compromise. They insist that any change is evidence of the jettisoning of Scripture. They are unwilling to accept that they may be the ones who have wrongly applied Scripture to the present day. They also fail to recognize that the very people they cite as authorities and patterns did not act this way.

There are others who also want to ignore how we got here. They just assume it is wrong that we are here (wherever “here” is). And so they insist that you must change, that if you continue to be “here” you are legalistic, uninterested in unity (whatever that is), and unwilling to obey God.

For some, their history is too short because it only starts 30-40 years ago. For some, their history is too short because it only starts 3-4 years ago.

I believe the way forward has to include a history that started 2000 years ago, and includes the events of the last century where scriptural doctrine came under attack. We have to understand the battles that were fought then against the present day situation now.

We have to return to the authority of Scripture rather than the authority of tradition.

I am reminded of the line by Brother G. I. Barber in his sermon on Hairology: “As fundamentalists, we know this is right because this is the way we have always done it.”

When you hear him say it, it is hilarious.

When you see people practice it, it is heartbreaking.

I wrote recently of failure on the part of some to take seriously the need to study the Scripture. They return only to their own recent history and in so doing, affirm that “How we got here is less important.”

I think we need a return to the authority of Scripture in practice, not just in word.

Lost It?

Sometimes, I can’t find something.

Now occasionally it is because I tend to worship at the idol of convenience. I lay my keys down at the first available flat spot, regardless of where it might be. And sometimes the spot isn’t flat, so they fall somewhere else.

I put my wallet near me, where “me” happens to be at that time. After all, that’s easier than walking three steps across the room to put my wallet and keys in the key holder by the front door.

True story (you can ask my mom; she will probably remember): When I was in high school, I lost my baseball glove for the better part of an off-season. I finally found it one day. I had put a ball in it and put it under my mattress to help form it. One day I finally wondered why the foot of my bed had a lump in it. I found out why … and found my glove at the same time.

Another true story: I spent over an hour one day in my office looking for my keys. I found them hanging on my belt, where I kept them in those days. You would have though the jingling of the keys every time I moved might have been a tip-off. Nope, not for me.

Mostly, I can’t find something because the last time I used it was so long ago that I don’t remember where I put it. The less I use something, the less inclined I am to remember where to find it.

Sometimes I hear people (or read people) use the Scriptures in a particularly insightful way. I wonder, “How do they do that?” And then I remember it is because they use the Scripture all the time. They don’t misplace the stuff of Scripture because it gets used to regularly in their lives.

The reason most of us don’t use Scripture very well, either in our own lives or in the lives of others, is because we don’t use it very often.

Scripture is given to us to shape our thinking and beliefs, and therefore to shape our lives.

It is the knife of a surgeon, carefully cutting away the disease. It is the hands of a mother, tenderly caring for a scraped knee. It is the instruction of artisan, patiently explaining his trade to an apprentice. It is the wrench of a mechanic, skillfully fixing that which is broken. It is the arms of a father, strongly holding his child during a thunderstorm of life.

It is the word of the living God, giving life to the dead and preparing them for eternity.

Love it enough to know it. Use it enough to find it when you need it.