Book Review: The Scripture Principle

Over the years, I've come to recognize that most disputes about theology, doctrine, and practice stem not from misunderstanding the Bible itself. So often when we debate and discuss doctrinal issues we spend our time pitting verse against verse, or debating original intent, or attempting to work through translation issues.

In reality, as I've come to realize, it's not the Bible that's the problem, and it's not even our understanding (or lack thereof) of the biblical text. Disagreement comes at a much more fundamental level - how we read the text in the first place.

It's a question of hermeneutic - how do we approach scripture? What assumptions do we bring? Through what lenses are we reading the texts? I find that, more and more, when I debate theology or practice I first have to have a discussion along the lines of "but how do you approach the text in the first place?" Otherwise we spend all our time throwing verses at each other, when in reality we're not even understanding those verses the same way.

In The Scripture Principle, Clark Pinnock attempts to lay out a coherent hermeneutic, a healthy, appropriate way of understanding and reading the biblical texts. And I found it extremely helpful.

For too long, the debate has been between fundamentalists and liberals, inerrantists and critics. For the last 100 years, these two camps have attempted to claim the high ground in reading and understanding the biblical texts. The liberal, critic-minded approach has been to claim human reason, insight, logic, and intelligence over the scripture. The Bible is a human collection of fables and legends, worth reading and studying if only to get a better understanding of the human experience, but anything divine or supernatural is automatically thrown out. The conservative, inerrantist approach has been to claim a complete Divine authorship, as if God penned the Bible as the One Perfect expression of all Truth. Any mention of supposed contradiction, any possibility of error, any challenge to historicity or scientific explanation is tantamount to heresy and proof of evil intent.

The problem, according to Pinnock, is that both approach the Bible from the same position - both become academic discussions and debates about the text, both attempt to push the Bible into human constructs, both seek to control the Bible. In neither case is the Bible given the authority it both claims and deserves for itself. "The Bible is not so interested in our academically proving as in our holistically seeing the truth, in our believing the gospel and actually obeying God."

In The Scripture Principle, Pinnock challenges both sides of the discussion, attempting to find a healthy middle ground. Ultimately, says Pinnock, the only proper response to the Bible is to submit to it, as it stands as God's revelation over us.

Two issues stood out as key for me in reading this book. First, Pinnock frames the Scripture Principle in terms of the Incarnation. Jesus was fully God present on earth. Jesus is the way to the Father. Jesus is the One in whom salvation is found. Jesus was divinity incarnate, able to lead the way to glory. Jesus revealed God's plan, Jesus spoke truth to all who would listen, Jesus performed miracles and so laid claim to the full authority of God. At the same time, Jesus was fully human. Jesus got tired. When he was cut, Jesus bled. Jesus could become irritated. Jesus had human skin that would scar when damaged. Jesus used all manner of stories and teaching methods. Jesus told fables. Jesus was very much "of the earth." God could have come in all Divine Glory and smacked us a good one. Instead, God chose to come in frail human form. We don't have to like it or even make sense of it, but it's what God did, so we can only accept it.

So, too, should we see scripture, according to Pinnock. Held within its pages is truth, is the revelation of God's plan; held within is the power to lead seekers to salvation, the power to give sight to the blind. The Bible speaks truth to all who will listen, the Bible claims the authority of God. And yet, the Bible was penned by humans. Humans who wrote out of anger, and love, and despair, and doubt, and joy. The Bible uses all manner of methods including stories and fables and arguments; the Bible is full of 'untruths' (think of Job's friends). The Bible reveals a progressive awareness of God's work, leading from the dim awareness of Abraham up through the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus. The Bible was written by specific men and women in specific cultures in specific locations at specific times in history. The Bible is full of seeming contradictions (the warlike OT God vs. the peace-making of Jesus; Paul commanding women to be silent, and then explaining how they should present themselves when speaking in public). This is the Bible we have. We don't have to like it, and we probably spend too much time trying to make sense of it, but it's how God has given it to us, so we can only accept it.

Secondly, Pinnock is clear about the role of the Spirit in wrestling with the text. Our understanding of the text is borne out of the wrestling between the Inspired Word and our human attempt at reading it. The Biblical world and our own worlds collide, and in that place, the Spirit continues to bring life and meaning. Sometimes that meaning is the same as the original writing; sometimes the Spirit brings new meaning to light. This is seen in the NT writings, as the authors mined the OT texts and found much there that was new in the light of Christ. It was true when Martin Luther, wrestling with Paul's teachings in Romans, suddenly understand the doctrine of grace in a new and clearer light. It may even be true of us today as we find teachings that apply to 21st century society that were unknown to men and women in the 1st century. But all of this comes, according to Pinnock, under two conditions. It comes when readers submit themselves to the texts, giving the texts the place of authority that we too often claim for ourselves, and it comes when the Spirit is alive and active in the reader. Thus, Pinnock would argue, we would never expect non-Christian critics to grasp the greater truths found within the pages of Scripture, as these are only truly revealed by the Spirit to Christ's followers.

Ultimately, Pinnock is clear that none of this discussion is worthwhile if it allows us to keep scripture at a distance. "God speaks through the Bible, not to make us scholars and scientists, but to put us in a right relationship with God and to give us such a religious understanding of the world and history that we can grasp everything better."

Both the liberal and conservative will find themselves challenged in the pages of The Scripture Principle; both, I believe, would be drawn to a healthier respect for each other, and for the Bible itself, if they wrestled with Pinnock's suggestions. It's actually a fairly healthy representation of the Evangelical Covenant Church's position on scripture; we claim the Bible as the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct, while not trying to pigeon-hole it into a specific doctrine of inerrancy or inspiration.

I should say this - The Scripture Principle is not an easy read; this is seminary-level stuff, but it certainly is worth the time and effort put into it.

Book Review: The Bible as Improv

Ron Martoia wants to change how we read the Bible. In fact, he believes, we've been reading the Bible wrong for a while now.

We read it wrong because we often read it as a rulebook. God has certain rules and expectations on behavior, and our Bible reading becomes and exercise in figuring out all those rules and expectations (sometimes they become quite intricate), and then living accordingly.

In the same vein, we often read is a book full of principles. There is an order to the universe, and if we can read through the Bible and pull all the strands together, we'll figure out the right principles to guide our lives.

The problem is, according to Martoia, the Bible is much more complicated than we like to admit. As Scot McKnight did in The Blue Parakeet, so Martoia opens up a window into all the ways the Bible doesn't fit into our categories of rules and principles. For instance: The Bible has rules for sexual behavior (we like those, even though we don't always follow them). The Bible also has rules about lying and murder. We like those. But. . .the Bible also has rules against wearing clothes made of different types of cloth. And against sowing different seeds into the same field. And we don't usually like those so much. In addition, even those rules about sexual behavior, which we like: we still don't like the full extent of the rules. As an example - how many people today believe we really ought to employ capitol punishment for adultery? Or for homosexuality? Or for disobeying one's parents? So. . the Bible has rules. But we don't think we ought to follow all of them. And the ones we follow - we still think we should alter them. Yet we claim the Bible is inerrant and infallible, Truth for all time. If it is Truth for all time. . .then why don't we do what it says?

In the same way, the principles don't seem to always work out. We pick and choose verses we like, using them as proverbs to lighten our day. All those verses about God blessing those he loves, about obedience leading to reward, about children being a blessing, about God giving us the desires of our heart. But then. . .children rebel, or, worse, they die. Spouses cheat. Christians go bankrupt. Like Job, even the righteous find out obedience doesn't always lead to blessing.

Even then, Martoia would argue, we're doing the Bible a disservice when we think we can grab a promise or admonition given to a specific person (or people) at a specific place in a specific situation a really long time ago, and apply it directly to our lives. We like to quote the admonition to Joshua: "Be strong and courageous!" as if it applied to our life. But Jesus' admonition to the rich young man, "sell everything you have and give it to the poor. . ." - how many people would claim that as their life verse? We love to grab hold of Proverbs 3:5-6, but how many want to abide by that little part in Acts 2 where "the believers sold everything and donated it to the church, so that nobody would be without"? We pick and choose, we read the Bible through lenses that fit our preconceived ideas of "how it should be," without realizing that we then leave lots of parts on the cutting room floor.

Martoia contends that it's wrong to read the Bible as a one-to-one correspondence to today, full of rules and principles we can uncritically apply to our present lives and situations. We must instead realize what it is: a record (or series of records) of people who encountered the living God in their own world, their own culture, their own understanding of reality. God came to each of these people (and peoples) and met them where they were; in the same way, God wants to meet us where we are today. But not by directly applying rules and principles he gave to his people long ago, but by allowing this book, this Bible, to live and breath in our world today. To do that, we must free it from our trappings of rulebook and collection of pithy sayings; we must let it sing and dance to us in new ways.

The book offers two suggestions to help us move forward. The first is reading the Bible as a literary classic. But don't let that title throw you off. He's not suggesting the Bible is simply another piece of literature, a la Moby Dick. Martoia still holds to the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and speaks Truth like no other book. The image of Bible as Classic is more built around the idea of how a classic shapes the reader, and then shapes the culture. Classics reveal truth not so much in pithy sayings or memorable quips - that would be the arena of second-rate gift books. Instead, classics reveal truth through the arc of the story, through character development, through the interaction of theme and action and reflection. We read how Ebenezer Scrooge became a miserly man, and how a fantastic night changed him. We do enjoy some of the quotes from the book, but none of us expect this Christmas to be visited by ghosts; if a troubled man came into my office for counsel this week I wouldn't say, "In A Christmas Carol, Dickens goes home and eats dry bread and cheese - you should do the same, and see what happens." Instead, we look to large themes - abandonment, pursuit of financial success at all costs, societal inequities, faith and hope even in dark times, good vs. evil, redemption - and those themes then fold into our lives, coming in new and fresh ways. We don't copy the book, but we appropriate the ideas and themes into our lives. And we continue to live our lives where the story finishes off.

Which leads to Martoia's second idea: reading the Bible as jazz improv. Jazz music, for all its freedom, follows pretty strict rules. The composer lays down the original melody and harmonic progression; the composer sets up the theme, sets up the 'box' in which the song sits. Usually, the first run-through sticks closely to that original theme, the 'true' melody. As the song moves along, however, the individual musicians take turns riffing solos that project outward from the original. Well-trained musicians know how to incorporate the composers idea and intent, while creating something fresh and new in their current context. To the untrained ear it may sound like a completely different song, but, if it's done well, the solo is actually very true to the composer's ideas and plans. "Good improv is in keeping with the original, but unearths new things within the framework of the original."

So, too, can we approach the scriptures, according to Martoia. "The Bible is no different. The goal isn't to repeat or recite the Bible. The Bible has to live through the music that I am making in my life. The Bible is being reinterpreted for the moment here and now - a reinterpretation that is happening in continuity with the Bible as originally written but may or may not include any of the same responses the characters in the Bible had."

Recently, I have come across a number of authors making a similar point. What if, they ask, instead of saying "Paul dealt with this situation and came to this conclusion for them, so the same conclusion applies to us," we instead looked at how Paul did theology in his context, and then attempted to do the same thing here. One simple example suffices: Paul declared it proper for a woman to pray with her head covered. While some churches believe that to be a once-for-all regulation, you'd be hard-pressed to find a church requiring women to wear bonnets for the prayer time. And so we are already doing this - we're not taking Paul's admonition to wear hats as new Torah; instead, we' re asking "why did Paul require that? What were the issues? How did he come to his conclusion?" and applying those same ideas to our context. What are the issues we face? How do we see the story arc of the scriptures coming to play in our world? What are the grand themes? What are the original melodies and harmonies, and how to we stay true to the original while creating new ideas today?

It must be said that Martoia continually returns to the idea of community throughout this book. Community fosters growth, it stimulates understanding, but it is also a safeguard against moving too far away from the original. As we read the story in community, as we attempt to work it out in our lives together, we have to use the resources around us, including the community of saints who have come before, and the Literary Experts and Jazz Masters, who have spent much of their lives digging through this Book.

There's obviously a lot about this approach that will leave many people nervous; it certainly feels very unorthodox. But I think, in the end, Martoia sifts through much that is wrong with current Bible reading practices, and offers some helpful ways forward. One of the greatest suggestions he offers is that people need to read the Bible as a whole, reading it all the way through, and reading it in large chunks, in order to see the sweep of the story, to pick up the grand themes. It is true that, to many people, the Bible is a collection of short stories and sayings. Martoia believes we need to be reading entire books in one sitting, and that we do it best when we read those large chunks together. With this I heartily agree; God's people will only be stronger when we read the Bible in its entirety, and when we read it in community, working out the ideas and plotlines and themes and melodies together.

With special thanks to Zondervan for sending me an advance copy for review.

Bible Translations

The web is all a-twitter this morning with the news that Zondervan is pulling the plug on the TNIV translation.

Eugene talks about it

Brad talks about it

Scot talks about it

I've got a busy day to day and don't have time to talk about it. Except to say I'm disappointed, as I used (and prefer) the TNIV more than any other.

I just thought it was an odd juxtaposition that on the same day this erupted across the blog-o-sphere, Glen would choose to point me to the newest translation:

The lolcat Bible.

Gen. 1:1 - "Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem."

That's Just Stupid

When it comes to scripture translations, my preference as of late has been the TNIV, although I use the NRSV for a lot of my study time.

But sometimes you just have to love the NLT, as with the reading for last Sunday's sermon - Amos 6.

Can horses gallop over rocks?
Can oxen be used to plow rocks?
Stupid even to ask -
but that's how stupid you are
when you turn justice into poison
and make bitter the sweet fruit of righteousness.
And just as stupid is this bragging
about your conquest of L0-debar.

So there. The Bible says people are stupid.

New Bibles

I own a lot of Bibles. A couple dozen, probably. Some I've purchased over the years, but most have been given to me - Bibles my parents gave me, my Ordination Bible, the Bible I was given when I was installed as pastor at Lakebay Community Church.

Two particular bibles have caught my attention lately. I was at Borders yesterday and picked up a copy of The Voice: New Testament, a brand-new translation by the Ecclesia Bible Society. I've only had a few spare moments between then and now to poke around inside, but so far I like what I'm finding.



As to the translation, those behind this interpretation have made a conscious effort to present the Bible as story, in a way that will connect with a world steeped in narrative . In other words, the concern of the translators was the tendency of most Bible translations to come across rather academically, and thus sometimes rather stilted, losing the broad sweep of action and dialogue that is supposed to carry the reader along. In order to achieve a different telling, the publishers used not only academics and people with "Dr." in front of their name, but also poets and story-tellers and musicians and artists and pastors. While maintaining fidelity to the original texts (as much as we have them), they sought to translate in ways that sing and resonate in the ears of 21st-Century people. In essence, their hope is to reclaim books that were written as stories, shared around campfires and along dusty roads, stories that lay deep within the hearts of God's people, but that have all-too-often become the battlegrounds of textual critics and classical academics.

Much thought went into the layout. One of the changes The Voice brings is to present the text in screenplay format. Thus, instead of "And then Jesus said. . .and then Mary said. . .and then they all said. . ." you get:

Jesus: Go get some food.
Disciples: Where are we going to get food?
Jesus: Why don't you try that Burger King over there.

(note: I just made that part up to give you an example. Nowhere in The Voice does Jesus talk about Burger King)

Also, within the text, the translators have included points of clarification to help the reader track the story. This is both an interesting addition and a minor irritation.

For instance, in Matthew 8, the story of the healing of the demon-possessed men, you read this:

"A way off - though still visible, not to mention odoriferous - was a large herd of pigs, eating.
Demons: If You cast us out of the bodies of these two men, do send us into that herd of pigs!
Jesus: Very well then, go!
And the demons flew out of the bodies of the two flailing men, they set upon the pigs, and every last pig rushed over a steep bank into the sea and drowned. The pig herders (totally undone, as you can imagine) took off. . ."

You can see how they do it - the normal text is a fairly faithful translation of the Greek texts, while the italicized portion are NOT part of the original text, but added to help make better sense of the story. One can see the danger - when you put the added part right in line with the text, it's easy to confuse what is the inspired Word of God and what is human interpolation. At the same time. . .last Wednesday I taught the middle school girls' Bible Study (Karina usually does, but she was in Mexico at the moment), and a couple of those girls have never cracked a Bible before this fall. Have never been in church before. Missed out on my Confirmation Class. And thus were generally interested but clueless about all that was going on. And I can see where this Bible would be the perfect Bible for them, helping them see and understand the bigger picture, and what's underlying the action. Much of what the above text does reflects exactly what I did in that Bible study - explain the history, the thoughts and feelings, helping them to visualize the action, the sights and sounds and smells of the story as it went along. So I'm not overly troubled by what the translators have chosen to do here. As to the irritation: sometimes when I'm teaching I enjoy the more nebulous nature of the original text, as that gives the class room for discussion. "What's going on here? Why do you think Jesus said that? What do you suppose they looked like?" Those are all good ways to further dialogue in the classroom, filling in the blanks. When translators fill in those blanks, as the NLT also does fairly often, it can dampen discussion. After all, the answers are all right there in the text now. Nothing left to toy with, to discern, to debate or wonder about. Thus, as with the NLT, sometimes what makes for good public or private reading doesn't always do as well as a basis for teaching.

In addition to the in-line added commentary, The Voice includes more extensive thoughts as the text goes along, still in-line with the text but bracketed off in boxes. More often than not (insofar as I've seen, anyway), these tend to be summary-type statements, or devotional, personal statements. For instance, following the above story of demons and pigs is the following 'thought in a box': "Some people recognized that Jesus was powerful, but they wanted nothing to do with His kind of power. As in this case, it cost them dearly."

In the end, I think this Bible may be the answer to all those people who say to me "I've never read a Bible, and I don't know where to start." Just looking at how the page is laid out: two simple columns, easy-to-read font, script-style dialogue, basic "helps" along the way - it invites the reader in. Also, like most novels, it doesn't contain pictures and charts and diagrams and timelines and all those extras you find in so many other Bibles. Just the text, with basic book introductions. Even the chapter and verse numbers are minimalized so as to not interrupt the flow. It seems to me to be a lot less overwhelming than your typical Bible. Finally, the copy I picked up, with woven cloth and leather cover, still carries a dignity about it, still seems to offer respect to the text within, which is not the case with so many Bibles printed today (see Kid's bibles, Youth Bibles, Teen Bibles, Postmodern Cynical Bibles. . .).

I am looking forward to spending more time with this Bible in the days to come. If you're interested in it, you can check out more at their website (see above). You can even download a copy of the Gospel of John for free, just to get a feel for how it reads.
_____

Last May I ordered a copy of The Books of The Bible, which is not a new translation but a new arrangement of the Bible. Published by the International Bible Society, The Books of the Bible is a specialty version of the popular TNIV, the translation I use in my own personal study and preaching.

Two things stand out about TBOTB, and both relate to the overall layout of the text. First, the publishers chose to order the books in ways that make more logical sense, or that stand truer to their original intent. Many people don't understand the rather haphazard way in which the order of books within the Bible was created; nor do we see how the disordered manner of book listings interrupts the overall flow of the Bible.

For instance, Luke and Acts were really intended to be Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of the Christian story, compiled by Luke. Vol. 1 tells the story of Jesus, Vol. 2 tells the story of the early church. But both were written by the same author and meant to flow together. However, early on the church shoved John in between Luke and Acts, since Luke structurally parrallels Matthew and Mark while John is just so, well, John-like. But when John broke up Luke and Acts, the reader lost the drama of reading Luke's epochal story beginning with the earliest inkling of the Messiah and ending with the Church spreading to Rome and beyond.

Thus, the publishers tried with TBOTB to restore a semblence of historical order and original intent, meaning the books of this Bible aren't necessarily in the same order as the books in your Bible. Luke and Acts are put back together, and followed by all the Pauline epistles. Matthew, being the most Jewish of the gospels, is placed right before Hebrews and James. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and much of the gospel of Mark probably came from the memories of Peter, so the gospel of Mark is placed just before 1 and 2 Peter. John is placed right before 1, 2, and 3 John. And so it goes.

In addition, in attempting to read as closely as possible to the originals, chapter and verse numbers have been eliminated from the text itself, and placed along the bottom of the pages. Yes, that makes it difficult when the pastor says "Turn to Joshua 4:5," it makes it difficult when you're attempting to look up a specific verse. I get that. But it also allows the reader to see the Bible as it was, whole sections and thoughts, a long developing train leading toward monumental conclusions, rather than a series of disconnected verses divided by random chapter and verse numbers.

TBOTB does even less with commentary and "helps" than The Voice. In fact, there is no commentary in TBOTB, save for a few short book introductions. And all footnotes have been changed to endnotes, so as not to clutter each page. In fact, rather than columns, each page is a gingle column of text, laid out in paragraphs, with poetry inset slightly from the margin to call attention to its form. It is one of the simplest layouts I've seen - simply the naked text on the page.

As to its uses, I find it primarily helpful in devotional reading, when I'm not so concerned about chapter and verse, wanting instead to be lost in the continual waves of the text. It's a little like floating in the ocean vs. a small pool, as the boundaries have been removed and it's a little less obvious where things start and where they stop. Which is a lot like real life, when you stop to think about it. I've also found that it can be helpful even in sermon prep, and Bible Study background work; again, in that you're allowed to see the long, logical development, or the extended songs of praise, you're much more aware of the broader context when all that context isn't bracketed off by chapter and verse numbers, and when that context isn't lost in the chorus of footnotes and Helps and graphs and charts. Thus the true voice of the Word stands out alone, instead of in chorus with all those other things we've added in over the years.

One little confession: I gave TBOTB to all our confirmation students this year as their Confirmation Bibles. The truth is, most have pretty decent study Bibles already. And I wanted something that might stick with them over the years, not a Teen Bible they'd put away in four more years. They might end up being just a little confused by this Bible. At the same time, I have the feeling it's one they'll come back to in later years, once they've grown up a bit and want to come back and take another look at this Book, this Holy Word. I told them I didn't really expect to see them using this Bible in church, mostly because it's tough to follow along when I say "here in chapter 6 verse 3." But for their personal time, their devotional time, when they're sitting around looking for something to read. . .just maybe they'll pick this one up, and see in it the Bible as it's supposed to be. God's Word, unencumbered by all that extra weight.

A Myth Shattered

Sunday's text took us through Mark's account of the young man with many possessions who was challenged by Jesus to "sell everything, give it to the poor, and follow me." This story is followed immediately by Jesus' teaching that it is "harder for the wealthy to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle."

During the sermon, I mentioned as a side point that there are stories circulating about the discovery of a gate in Jerusalem known as the Eye of the Needle. According to the story, it was a low gate, and in order for camels to pass through, they had to get on their knees and crawl forward. The punch line of this story is that "getting on your knees" part. Jesus must be saying something about humbling ourselves and praying. This story is often told in Sunday School lessons and in sermons by well-meaning pastors.

I then mentioned that there is no evidence whatsoever for the truth of that story. Call it my little bit of Sunday Morning Myth Busters. As it stands, it is a popular little teaching that is unfounded in any reality, so it's time to lay it to rest.

I was gently "challenged" by some who weren't so sure that it's not true, and who wanted to know why I denied its veracity.

So, as a follow up, let me offer some sources:

"Imaginative interpreters have invented a small gate in the Jerusalem wall called the 'Needle's Eye' [in a] a misguided attempt to make something Jesus calls 'impossible' into something that might just be (barely) possible."
- Timothy J. Geddert: Believers Church Bible Commentary: Mark (pg 247)

"Interpretations that try to reduce the size of the camel or enlarge the needle's eye are suspect. There is no basis for the widely circulated tradition that the eye of the needle was the name of a gate in Jerusalem."
- Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Vol. 1, Clinton E. Arnold, Ed. (pg. 265)

"From at least the 15th century, and possibly as early as the 9th but not earlier, this story has been put forth, however, there is no evidence for such a gate. . ."
- http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

"Many improbably interpretations have arisen that attempt to soften this phrase, e.g., that 'needle' referred to a tiny gate in the Jerusalem city wall that camels could only enter with difficulty (but there is no evidence such a gate ever existed. . .)"
-The MacArthur Study Bible, notes by John MacArthur (pg 1482)

I think I need to get one of these

The Books of the Bible.

It's a TNIV translation of the Bible, with a number of features that make it different from most other Bibles:
- The chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text, so it reads with the original flow
- There are no notes, cross-references, or other features added to the pages - just the basic text
- Books that "should" go together actually do. For instance, Luke and Acts are placed next to each other, and John is placed at the end along with Revelation and the Epistles from John.

Plus it's only $8.99

More on Mars Hill

I'm no fan of The Stranger, but they ran an article on the firing of two pastors that I mentioned a couple days ago (which, by the way, brought more people to this blog than any other post I've ever written. Maybe there is a marketing strategy there. . .)

What caught my interest was this:

Things got even uglier in a September 30 sermon, when Driscoll—who’s been the face of the church since it was first established in 1996—stated, sternly referencing the two dissidents, that “There are a few guys right now, if I wasn’t going to end up on CNN, I would go Old Testament on ’em. There’s no, like, attorneys and blogging, just like I punched you in the mouth, now shut up. That’s clean; it’s simple.”

The article doesn't footnote the quote, so there's no way of knowing if it's legit or not. But Driscoll is known for his provocative, shoot-from-the-hip, confrontational style, so it very well could be true.

It's not my place to stand here and cast stones across the pond. . .but having been a victim of another charismatic, power-hungry pastor attempting to bend the church's will to his every whim, I've got to say it's all sounding too familiar. Setting off warning bells on my radar, if you will.

Way back when, after I got away from that particular pastor, I found this verse and decided that either it would define my ministry, or I'd get out of ministry:

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:2-3)

It's that "eager to serve; not lording it over them" that pulls me up short and causes me to constantly question my motives. And it's a standard I often apply when attempting to discern the ministries of other pastors (well, that and the "not greedy for money," which would be totally different post than this one. . .). So tell me, accepting for the moment that the sermon quote is from Driscoll, how does it line up with Peter's admonition?

The Great Sermon Experiment, Week 7

Texts for Sunday, July 29
Ninth Sunday after Pentecost

Colossians 2:6-15
Luke 11:1-13

The Colossians passage is a wonderful statement of christology - going into great detail in explaining the work of Christ. However, as Paul often does, the theology is heavily invested with "this then is what you should do."

The Luke passage gives us Jesus, teaching his disciples about prayer. You'll note Jesus gives pretty explicit instructions to his disciples that they need to be asking God to meet their needs. God is not shy in giving his children what they need.

So, to my faithful responders:
- So what? What do you take from these texts that will affect your life?
- How are believers called to respond to the teaching in these two texts? What are we being asked to do?
- When have you had a specific need met, after taking it to the Lord?
- Paul's explanation of Christ's work is pretty dense. Essentially, he's saying "don't let human rules get in the way, because that's exactly what Christ freed you from." Why is that so important?