Translation/Contextualization Issues

A friend of mine who is involved in translating the Bible into the language of a small people group, was discussing with me just how to translate the word "week" from Daniel 9:24 >>.
Among the people with whom he was working, week typically means 8 days. So far my friend's best efforts at translating in a fairly literal way was resulting in a paragraph to translate a single word. The smoothest solution--one he isn't entirely comfortable with is--is to give the number of years involved (See Daniel 9:2). Part of the problem stems from the fact that some of the people are bilingual and sometimes read the Bible in another language.
My friend will work it out.

Here is a much more troubling translation issue. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/soncrescent.html?start=1
If nothing else, reading the article will encourage prayer for missionaries to the Muslim world.

One of the problems with contemporary dialogue about Christianity is the difficulty with terms. It has always been a problem, but it seems much worse lately. Here are a couple of issues.

• There is often a spectrum of beliefs that uses the same title. Fundamentalists shade from the wacko, KJV-Only, to those essentially indistinguishable from those called Evangelicals. Evangelicals range from those like the Fundamentalists to those who barely hold to the essentials of the Evangel. The Charismatic title includes some who just want to worship in a free-er style to those who hold views that historic Christianity regards as heretical. ETC. etc.
  
  
• Those who use a term as an insult will often focus on the worst, while those who defend a particular group will choose its best exemplars.
  
  
• Some people who use a label, use it because they associate with only a part of the Theology that marks that group. Those who are critical may be criticizing a portion of the system that a particular individual not only doesn't hold, but of which he is unaware.
  
  
• Then there is deliberate distortion, in both directions--maybe more.

John Piper recently posted a thought. Rather than say I am a _______, why not say this is what I believe. You tell me what I am. It is a little unwieldy but what we have is a mess.

Paul's word to Timothy is crystal clear. "Preach the Word!"

Schuller['s] enterprise is filing for bankruptcy on more than one front. . . .
Schuller was only leading the parade of those who believe they are responsible for making the gospel relevant. . . . The lesson is that our attempts to find and exploit a point of cultural contact inevitably end in bankruptcy.

I have always had a problem with the attempt to make the Gospel or the Bible relevant. It is like making water wet. God's word, especially the message within it related to forgiveness and eternal life, is supremely relevant. What is important is for us to not muck it up, so we in some way hide the relevance of the message. Our attempts to be trendy often do just that.

The Christianity Today editorial quoted above does a pretty good job of job of pointing out that what has gone wrong at the Crystal Cathedral was not just a matter of a lack of Windex, but of the very foundations of that ministry and many others. "Today both the Crystal Cathedral and the theology that undergird it seem woefully inadequate buildings in which to house the gospel." Several times the editorial refers to Schuller's theology as Evangelical. Perhaps it started there, and maybe in the formal categories of different kinds of belief-systems his "gospel of self-esteem" belongs in the file folder labeled "Evangelical." I'll leave that to the categoriticians. Clearly, though, a message that avoids the "Woe is me of Isaiah, the Damascus Road of Paul, the "Unless you repent, you too will all perish," of Jesus, and cuts out the first two and a hlaf chapters of the Book of Romans, is not based on the Evangel of the New Testament. I am encouraged that there is a growing group of conservative Evangelicals, moderate Fundamentalists, just plain Bible believers and proclaimers--call them what you will--who are rejecting this kind "relevance."
Os Guiness has some good things to say on attempts at relevance-making that end up making our message totally irrelevant--Prophetic Untimeliness. (I'm not trying to sell books for Amazon. I only include the link so you can get a taste of the book.)

It seems to me that Paul's word to Timothy is crystal clear. "Preach the Word!"

The Christmas story retold in a surprising way:

If you want to cut to the chase, just skip my musings and go the bottom of this post and click on the link.

Merry Christmas.

I always thought it was kind of strange that some Renaissance artists would paint pictures of Biblical scenes but dress the characters in the garb of their day. I figure Raphael and the other artists of the 16th Century knew that Mary didn't wear the clothing of the Italian women of their time. They had to have known that there was no reason for the infant Jesus and John (the Baptist) to be playing with a cross--think of what the cross meant at the time. They knowingly placed their Biblical scenes in surroundings that were a millennia-and-a-half out of synch.
I'm way far away from being an art expert, but my guess is that they were trying to communicate a timeless message in a way that would communicate with with their contemporaries. You can let me know if I'm wrong, and I'll leave it up to better heads than mine to comment on whether or not they succeeded at all. You can see some examples of this kind of art here.

All of this was really a fairly long-winded introduction to a video that someone sent me. I have in mind some friends of mine who decry against the use of technology in regard to worship to such an extent that they feel it necessary to defend themselves against the accusation that they are Luddites. I received the link to this imaginitive video from a friend. Someone took the story of Christ's birth and presented it in a totally anachronistic way. I'm not trying to say it is high-art or anything, but it worked on me.
What if the ubiquitous ability to post online messages were available to the characters who make up the Christmas story?
I encourage you to look.

Hauling Water to a Thirsty, Unbelieving, Unconvinced World:

The view through my keyhole is narrow--bound as it is by my perception--but, magnified by the Internet, it is long.
Some friends of mine serve as Christ's witnesses in Phnom Penh. The tragic bridge collapse, of a few days ago, took place in their neighborhood. T. recently wrote:

We're writing with sad hearts. As you've probably seen or heard on the news, the
Water Festival ended with tragedy here in Phnom Penh last night. The latest
reports are claiming about 400 people died and 400 more were hospitalized after
a stampede on a bridge not too far from our apartment.
. . . To be honest, we are feeling sad and frustrated. . . . 400 people almost all of whom did not know Jesus suffocated or were crushed to death, 400 families lost
children, parents, siblings and just as many are in hospitals fighting for their
lives.
Because there was no way to really help besides praying for the families, I spent the day driving my motorbike with as many cases of water as I could carry to deliver to families waiting outside three of the major hospitals which received stampede victims. . . .
At the last hospital, the people in charge directed me to take the water to the place where families came to claim bodies. There were so many exhausted, hopeless faces. I felt incredibly inadequate showing up on a motorbike loaded down with a measly 10 cases of water in the face of such loss; but the workers there were kind and thanked me. . . .

The scripture comes to mind, "And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." (Matthew 10:42, NASB95)
My friend sees his act as insignificant, and by the metric of the horrendous scale of the disaster, I have to agree, but apparently there is a Divine measurement that imputes far greater significance to a moped loaded with water delivered by a kind, though foreign face.
A few days after receiving the note above, I happened to see T. online. We chatted for a moment. He observed that most of the people affected by the tragedy believe in reincarnation. They are comforted that because these loved ones died in such a terrible manner while participating in a religious event, they would come back in a better state in the next life. He asked,
"How do we argue with that?"
I don't think my friend's question was primarily intellectual. He is well versed in apologetics, and knows how to share the Gospel. His query came from the gut more than from the head. How can we take away this shred of hope--false, though it may be--when lack of language, trust, and cultural awareness make it nearly impossible for me to share the real hope. Like his meager offering of water in the face of such overwhelming need, T. felt that what he had to offer was inadequate.
My reply to T.'s question, "How do we argue with that?" was brief.
"We don't."
I went on to offer some further explanation about how we trust God to penetrate hearts with the Good News. He and I know, however, that such penetration is usually frustratingly slow and sporadic. I wished for a jet plane, a couple of cups of coffee and time to listen and talk.

I share some further thoughts here not only, not even primarily, for my friends there on the front-line--I figure they already know more than me--but mostly for all of us who constantly struggle with questions related to tragic events.

• First, T., though your offering of water is literally a drop in an ocean, you were precisely and profoundly right to offer it.
  I don't have his book in front of me but Theologian and pastor, Millard Ericson, in his book, Christian Theology, makes the important distinction between a pastoral and a Theological answer to the problem of evil. People who are hurting are much more in need of a drink of water, offered from a kind hand, than they are a tightly reasoned Theodicy offered from a brilliant mind.
• While my answer was brief--partly due to the constraints of i-chatting & slow-typing--I still think it is right. Clearly there is at least (I say "at least knowing that many, to one degree or another, hold to and practice evidential-apologetics.) an element of truth in presuppositionalism. Our task is not so much to prove the validity of the Gospel as to proclaim it. We believe that "Life and reality make sense only on the basis of Christian presuppositions." (http://home.comcast.net/~webpages54/ap/presup.html) As Jesus said, "If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. (John 7:17, ESV) There is always an element of risk in faith, at least on the front end. No apologetic safety line can make the plunge into faith--especially when the starting point is a culture largely devoid of Christian influence--totally free of fear. Examples abound of those who received the Good News when it appeared to many outsiders that it was totally unreasonable for them to do so. Later they found it made perfect sense. Often those Saul/Paul-like conversions lead to significant penetration of the truth of God into a people-group. Keep hauling water, both in plastic bottles and the "Living" kind.
• We cannot get away from the reality that our security in the Lord is not primarily based on our complete understanding of His ways, but in our trust of Him. We need to refer to Deuteronomy 29:29 often.
• We are far better to offer no answer than to traffic in easy, pat, feel-good pseudo-truths. Following another disaster, Al Mohler shared some words worth reading in this regard, "God and the Tsunami."

To my friends in Cambodia, thanks. To the rest of us, Let's haul some water.

We were sitting around the THANKSGIVING table. Ours was not a wealthy home, but it was one where the ample provision of the Lord could be seen in many ways.

• We were all healthy.
• My dad had a good job, with which to provide for the family.
• Our home was warm and secure.
• It was the time of the "Cold War." Vietnam was still on the horizon. My dad, a vet of WW2, and neighbors who had fought in Korea were home on that Thanksgiving Day. Though from an earthly viewpoint our peace was secured by M.A.D.. It was peace. The boys were home.
• Our table was indication of the plenty that we had. There was a car in the driveway, a TV in the living-room, beds for all, and blankets on the beds. We had bikes, ball-gloves, roller-skates and dolls that cried. Christmas planning, if not shopping, had likely already begun.

Yet on that day of plenty, a Day that had been set aside to acknowledge that, there was an awkward pause before the meal. I don't remember all the details. Perhaps the presence of guests created embarrassment. At that time none of us was particularly "religious." I don't remember whether a prayer was offered or not. I do remember the strangeness. We were gathered for Thanksgiving dinner, and no one was interested in offering thanks.

I hasten to add that this condition was corrected in my family. Later my dad became one who delighted in reminding his kids of God's blessings and leading us in offering thanks. I think I can confidently say that all my siblings are living lives of gratitude. I know I'm trying.

I write this with the knowledge that Thursday in a great many homes Thanksgiving Dinner will be served, but no thanks will be offered. I'm hoping that perhaps in a few homes this will encourage a family, blessed like mine was fifty, or so, years ago to hold hands and praise Him from Whom all blessings flow.

Happy Thanksgiving.

THE NEW PRESODISTS:

The Barna group recently posted some interesting results from a survey related to Calvinism in today's evangelical world. "Is There a "Reformed" Movement in American Churches?"
Those of you who read magazines and blogs have likely noticed descriptions like "The New Calvinists," or, the "Reformed Movement." Until I read this article I was one of those who would have said that the theological wind was blowing in the direction of an emphasis on Divine sovereignty. My thoughts in that regard had to do with the popularity of some writes and preachers who it seems to me are on that end of the spectrum--Piper, Keller, DeYoung, Begg, Harris, and Mohler. A number of magazines have covered the phenomenon, here.

I won't quote any numbers from the survey, you can read it, but, at least it seemed to me, the survey results do not bear out any move toward Geneva. I would appreciate your take on these numbers and observations on the trend, or lack thereof, in general.

There was one aspect of the crunched numbers that reinforced a personal observation--"nobody is any one thing anymore." It used to be that if you identified a trait associated with say Calvinism, or Wesleyanism in a person's Theology, that you could with reasonable confidence conclude that this person also held to most of the other tenets of that Theological system. No more. Note this observation from the survey: "The study found that 31% of pastors who lead churches within traditionally charismatic or Pentecostal denominations were described as Reformed, while 27% identified as Wesleyan/Arminian."

It kind of reminds me of the pastor who went to a pastor's fellowship that had experienced a schism along Calvinist/Arminian lines. When he registered, for no reason that he could identify the receptionist sent him to the Arminian group. Not recognizing him, some of the delegates asked who he was and why he decided to join their part of the fellowship. When he told them that he had no choice, but was sent, they threw him out. Not knowing where else to go, he chose to go to the Calvinist meeting. You can finish the story. :) The moral is there are a lot of folk who don't fit in either end of the convention hall.

Maybe we can help each other understand what is going on.