Me Church

Yep, that's about it.

Yahweh / LORD — ay, yi yi

Background: I've both written and ranted about this nutty, indefensible tradition of English translations using the codewords LORD or GOD (in caps) when the Hebrew text has YHWH, most likely pronounced "Yahweh."

Foreground: one modern translation, the Christian Standard Bible, at least sometimes (about 75 times, out of over 6000 occurrences of Yahweh) uses the actual name God gave Himself (Exodus 3:13-16).

Now, I basically like the CSB. It is hard to get used to the contractions, but while I generally read the ESV, I appreciate that the CSB is occasionally willing to strike out with a fresh rendering that better captures the Hebrew or Greek text. For instance, years ago I very closely studied, and translated, the book of Colossians. In doing so, I had to part company with more standard translations here and there to represent the Greek text more accurately. Now I see some of those same renderings in the CSB.

So, back to this particular. My philosophy is, "Some is better than none." So I'm glad the CSB uses "Yahweh" at least some times.

However, their rationale just makes no sense, and it sometimes makes for zany nuttiness. The translators say that "The HCSB® uses Yahweh, the personal name of God in Hb, when a text emphasizes Yahweh as a name: His name is Yahweh (Ps 68:4)." So... why? How can you tell? God decided to use it some 6823 times in the Torah (according to BDB). How do you decide that almost 6750 of those times is not emphatic enough? This strikes me as yet another example of unintentionally trying to be smarter than God.

With that kind of wackiness, you end up with renderings like Exodus 15:3:

The LORD is a warrior;
Yahweh is His name.

Huh? Notice "LORD" in the first stich, "Yahweh" in the second. But in the Hebrew, the exact same word.

Okay, so... if "Yahweh is His name," then why don't we use it?

Same thing here:

5 The LORD came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed His name Yahweh. 6 Then the LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed: Yahweh-- Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth.... (Exodus 34:5-6)

"The LORD came down... and proclaimed His name Yahweh." His name Yahweh, that we won't use most of the time. I just can't see how that can do other than baffle an English reader who thinks about it at all.

Or again, here:

So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it Yahweh Shalom. It is in Ophrah of the Abiezrites until today. (Judges 6:24)

Or here:

"Answer me, LORD! Answer me so that this people will know that You, Yahweh, are God and that You have turned their hearts back" (1 Kings 18:37)

Or here:

For I am the LORD your God who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- His name is Yahweh of Hosts (Isaiah 51:15; again, it's His name... but we mostly won't use it)

Or here:

So they called out to the LORD: "Please, Yahweh, don't let us perish because of this man's life, and don't charge us with innocent blood! For You, Yahweh, have done just as You pleased" (Jonah 1:14)

Or here:

At that time those who feared the LORD spoke to one another. The LORD took notice and listened. So a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Yahweh and had high regard for His name (Malachi 3:16)

I defy anyone to make any sense of any of that.

So, unfortunately, that leaves only one modern translation that consistently uses the name—and it's Roman Catholic (New Jerusalem Bible). And one older (Rotherham). And some odd, fringey, cultish knockoffs. And as usual, when the church holds back on some Biblical truth, cults come in and make that one thing mean everything, and over-obsess. Nonetheless, it's hardly a badge of pride for "Protestant" translations that we continue to prop up this indefensible old relic.

I had one very well-known, very well-studied prof reprove me in seminary for regularly using "Yahweh" when I translated texts that used "Yahweh." He said it's what the liberals say. Really.

Well, I imagine liberals occasionally brush their teeth and comb their hair, too; and I'm not going to refrain from either simply because I fear false association with them.

Ay yi yi , the slavery of traditions. Not good.

Dealing Christianly with criticism

You've faced it, I've faced it: criticism. Particularly criticism from the godly.

I've faced it quite pungently as a pastor, and as a blogger. I'm sure that those whose criticism I don't fully and instantly embrace are sure that I've callously and arrogantly brushed it aside without a thought, and I understand that thinking. However, this is seldom (if ever) the case.

Evaluating and responding to criticism is a very thin tightwire, I think; and I think you'll agree, if you think it through with me.

"Squish" Hewitt likes to quote a proverb, "When everyone tells you you're drunk, sit down." There's clearly wisdom in those words: if you keep hearing the same thing from person after person after person, the odds are good to excellent that they're seeing something. And you're a fool if you shrug it off without a thought.

The proverb has wisdom, I say, but not all wisdom. The answer to the rhetorical question, "Can [however many] Frenchmen be wrong?" is "Of course they can." Think of it Biblically. Consider this:

When Pharaoh drew near, the people of Israel lifted up their eyes, and behold, the Egyptians were marching after them, and they feared greatly. And the people of Israel cried out to the LORD. 11 They said to Moses, "Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us in bringing us out of Egypt? 12 Is not this what we said to you in Egypt: 'Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians'? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness." (Exodus 14:10-12)

It's all there. These are the people of God! They'd just prayed (v. 10), so what they said had religious backdrop! They said en masse that Moses had brought them all out to die in the wilderness! They said they knew it all along!

And they were all wrong!

Then think of the spies' report in Numbers 13. Twelve spies sent, twelve came back, ten of the twelve — a landslide! — said that there was no way they could take the land. And they were dead wrong.

But they did persuade most of the people, and most of the people took their counsel and acted on it. And they were dead wrong.

We could go on and on. Think of Israel at Jesus' time. "Crucify! Crucify!" Religious people, all united and fervent in their opinion; all dead wrong. For that matter, think of Israel today, the vast majority of whom still are stubbornly and hard-heartedly in a state of Deuteronomy 18:19.

So the Christian must know that is possible for the vast majority of any body of religious to be absolutely certain, blood-earnest, heartily and specifically condemning, and utterly, completely, dead wrong.

And think of "leaders" we've all known who lead by the wet finger raised to the breeze. You know the sort: every decision, every phrase, is poll-tested and designed to play to the masses. The only principle on which you can be sure they'll stand is the principle of the retention of power. Too many Republican senators have shown this characteristic in recent years and days.

But it isn't merely a political phenomenon, for scores of pastors and writers are little different. They preach topically, so as to avoid unpopular truths. In interviews or private conversations, they may insist that they hold these truths. "Hold them" they may; "hold them high" they do not.

Paradoxically, folks do not have much respect for "leaders" whom they know to be easily "rolled" by popular opinion, whereas they tend (tend) to respect principled leadership. Think of conservative reaction to Mitt Romney, who was insistently and forever pro-abortion when running for office in a pro-abortion state, and now is insistently pro-life, as he runs for nomination within a (largely) pro-life political party.

So we should disregard all criticism, right?

Well, of course not. And here we must turn about, lean over and examine the other side of this narrow ridge on which a Christian leader must stand, with its equally disastrous dropoff.

We also read insistent, pointed, forceful exhortations like these:

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,
but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 15:32 Whoever ignores instruction despises himself,
but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.

Proverbs 17:10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding
than a hundred blows into a fool.

Proverbs 19:20 Listen to advice and accept instruction,
that you may gain wisdom in the future.

Proverbs 29:1 He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck,
will suddenly be broken beyond healing.

Ecclesiastes 7:5 It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise
than to hear the song of fools.

The stance of the wise should be to be very open and receptive to criticism; indeed, to welcome it. After all, what is our goal? Is it to maintain every position intact, never grow, never realize that a thing can be handled better than we'd done in the past? Or is it to keep growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ, which necessarily involves what Luther's first Thesis calls an "entire life... of repentance."

If you've spilled nasty things all over your shirt/blouse, would you rather that no one say anything, so that you can maintain the illusion of perennial and perfect tidiness—until you get home and realize you'd looked like a pig all evening? Or would you rather someone tell you in kindness, so that you can try to do something about it?

So if we've ugly and destructive attitudes or behaviors, is our priority to maintain the illusion that we've Arrived, until we arrive Home, and realize what a perfect mess we've been?

So, yikes: this second body of texts strongly urges listening to criticism, hearing and heeding it, taking it to heart. It urgently warns us against deaf ears, hard and arrogant hearts, and stiff necks.

So what do we do? We daren't assume that majority opinion is right; we daren't assume that any criticism is wrong.

Actually, I think that is exactly what leaders must do. If you hear criticism, and never think it has even a grain of wisdom and truth in it, you're either Jesus, or you have your heart in the wrong place. But equally, if you're like President Logan in Season Four of 24, with no root nor rudder, you're not wearing the mantle of leadership well.

When it comes to criticism, I think the best target is: Be neither aloof, nor a slave. You should listen, and listen hard; you should weigh carefully and unsparingly before God. But you must weigh, honestly and humbly. Our own personal stance should be like that of the wise man in Proverbs 9:8b-9:

...reprove a wise man, and he will love you.
9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning.

Now here's the sad part. Almost invariably you will infuriate, and perhaps unintentionally make an enemy of, every critic whose advice you don't fully follow. Show me a leader with no enemies, and I'll show you a nothingburger. The wiser of your critics will realize that you will ultimately not stand before the judgment seat of Them, but the judgment seat of God—and at some point this must rule your perspective. They'll not make everything ride on your accepting the infallibility of their judgment.

And given that God both counsels us to take criticism very seriously, and not to be its slave, His perspective will be our wisest perspective.

Bit of a shift coming Monday

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

I plan to post some essays here that might otherwise have gone to Pyro, to help those going through the pains of the two-week withdrawal period. (Well, and also, so that my own head won't explode.)

I'm here for ya. We can get through this.

Pray for Libbie

One of my very few links goes to Libbie, the "English Muffin."

Libbie's had a very rough pregnancy, which she's taken with characteristic grace and good humor.

Her husband "Ant" (Antony) just posted this update:

Ant Here

Update 25th Jan for your info and to weave into your prayers if you wish. [That's so British! --DJP]

Libbie's pain has become better controlled and she is more comfortable.

However she has a kidney infection they think and so is on a drip to sort that out. Because the hospital specialises in premature baby care there is every chance they will bring the birth forward before 37 weeks (we are at 34 weeks nearly) since they have all the kit required to aid the baby after birth

The consultant has said that once the kidney infection has been controlled and Libbie's pain relief is stabilised then it is about finding the balance between baby's' growth and preparedness for birth and Libbie's condition that will determine the date of birth and method of delivery (C-Section or induction)

The ward is hot - it is like a greenhouse! The girls are being cared for by a lovely family from Witton (our church) and Ant's parents to enable Ant to have some space to work part time (first day in the office tomorrow) and visit Lib alone (Husband's privilege!)

God is providing us a way through. As he always has... Please thank him in your prayers for the provisions of help and strength to this little English family.

Man, what a week

Over at Pyro, that is. And that's the part you see.

I'm seriously considering a post titled "Water."

The entire contents would be:

Powerful wet stuff, that. Discuss.

Think there'd be an argument?

Oh, probably; the clinic is always in session.

Besides, can't do it now. Did it here.

Hmm... but fire. Now there's a topic.....

They hate me! They really hate me!

I've inspired a new blog genre: The Grudgeblog!

Previously, I've inspired some bothered souls to devote long articles, or even whole series of articles, to trying (very, very hard) to miss the point of my postings here and at Pyro, and to deflect attention to something that they find more congenial, or otherwise raking me and my argments over the coals. Which is absolutely their right.

But recently I found a blog with only one post, ever, and that devoted to expressing disdain for yr. obdt. svt. -- me!

It's an arrival of sorts, I suppose. My Why I Am (Still) a Christian got an atheist discussion group all excited; the Gannon-Guckert post got the homosexual community all aflutter. Whenever I speak in favor of the sufficiency of God's Word (particularly over at Pyro), the leaky-canon set gets riled up. I've gotten emails from folks who say that, if I won't respond to commenters as they think I should, they won't read me anymore.

At the same time, I've gotten a lot of very gracious backstage emails, in-person encouragement, and some very kind remarks here.

So, net: I'm increasingly loved and hated.

Phil says it means I've "arrived."

Oh. Um... cool.

Now honestly, I'm like anyone else. Maybe even more so. A friend once told me that my problem was that I wanted everyone to like me. Well, yeah. Guilty as charged. But I recall a very stern warning against that very state of affairs (Luke 6:26). So, better loved and hated than ignored, or loved by the wrong sorts for the wrong reasons.

In sum: believe me, I'm not complaining. In fact, I'm regularly thanking God.

It does call to mind a story I heard told of (or by; I don't recall) the late J. Vernon McGee. A young pastor was complaining that he wasn't seeing the sort of progress in his ministry that he felt he should.

McGee asked a number of questions, and wasn't finding anything amiss. Finally, he asked, "Do you have any enemies?"

"No," the young man responded.

"Oh!" said McGee. "Well then, go out and get some!"

Advice taken.

Transcribers can be funny

My wife, older children and I are (surprise!) huge 24 fans.

So now that I've seen the first four hours, I was scanning the transcript of the cast's appearance on Larry King Live. I only scanned it, because it may contain spoilers--which I hate.

Nonetheless, I hit on this response from one of the actors:

MAROPIS: Yes, I'm full-blooded cretin.

Um, really?

A little context, and textual criticism, can do wonders:

KING: You're Greek?
MAROPIS: Yes, I'm full-blooded cretin. And my dad was in Crete and my dad
traveled by himself to return home and we were living the next day....

"Ohh," you say. "Cretan."

Yes, of course. But the busy transcriber didn't make that little contextual connection.

Very instructive.

Reformeds and dispensationalism, hither and thither

I am working on some posts defining what I mean by dispensationalism. That could take some time. Well, it already has taken some time.

My previous post clearly troubled some consciences, which always results in either change or heel-digging and chest-beating. There was a lot of the latter. (There was also some brotherly, challenging, worthwhile discussion in the meta of that post.) One of the most amusing/bemusing responses was the repeated charge that, in interacting with what I've heard and read for over thirty years, I'd created "straw men." Go figure. (Charismatics often do the same when their doctrines and practices are held up to analysis.)

So the following, I hope, are instructive one hand / other hand examples:

1. On the one hand David Bayly (a good guy, whose dad Joseph was a wonderful writer) wrote a very gracious essay titled Why Dispensationalism Is Wrong..... He tells a story involving an former prof of mine (John Sailhamer), ends by linking to my post on dissing Dispensationalism, below -- but not before saying:
   

   I don't agree with dispensationalism, but I'm not an expert on it. And when I did meet an expert, I found certain stock Reformed criticisms of dispensationalism rather threadbare. Dispensationalists deserve to be taken seriously. Reformed believers don't appreciate being accused of the things Arminians suggest against us. Most are false. We need to be as careful in what we say about dispensationalism as we ask Arminians to be toward us.

2. Among those most certainly not taking brother Bayly's advice would be The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. I was pretty jazzed to see the site at first. They look like they may have a truckload of really cool resources. And then I saw they had a section on Eschatology. This intrigued me; many of us are content to define "Reformed" by the Five Sola's, but some also define it as having a specific eschatology. So, optimistic fool that I am, I clicked.
   
   It features discussions of various positions. Ah! so there isn't just one! Oh, but look closer. Postmillennialism and amillennialism apparently enjoy the status of being presented by advocates of those systems themselves, with some alternative assessments offered. But under dispensationalism? Alas; only criticism, by anti-Dispensationalists. Why? The blurb at the top explains quite clearly:

There are three basic eschatological views which are held by those calling themselves "Reformed." These are: postmillennialism, amillennialism, and historic premillennialism. Absent from the list is dispensational premillennialism because it is a view which (a) is incompatible with the doctrines of grace (b) compromises God's aseity, and (c) compromises God's sovereignty. Below are included some critques of different aspects of dispensationalist teaching.

Now, this is just foolish, and sad, and utter nonsense. Blind traditionalism isn't confined to Rome, is it? Ah well; maybe some reasonable soul like David Bayly will have a chat with the webmasters, and we Calvidispies can get on their bus, even if we have to start with sitting at the back of it. [UPDATE 8/7/2009 — because I'm about to link to it, I checked the site again. It is two and one-half years later. Do you think the webmasters have learned one thing about dispensationalism in that time? Has there been a millimeter's growth? Evidently not.]

When liberals gain power

This poorly-written article ("A new bill wants to..."—yikes!), unfortunately, is the only reporting I could find on California's proposed No Spanking Bill. If this Democratic leader has her way, it will be against the law to practice Christian parenting in California.

I have several brief observations:

1. I almost titled the article "When Democrats gain power," but chose "liberals" instead. In the past, when I've expressed criticism of my former party, I've been jumped all over by careless readers and poor thinkers who from that create the conclusion that I support everything the GOP is and does, and see it as the savior of mankind. This is, of course, baseless. Worse, it's stupid.
2. However, either title would have worked, because (—and this, in a nutshell, is my political thinking) there are only two viable political parties in America, and of those two only one sometimes is friendly to applied and distinctive Christian political/social thinking. That would be the GOP. The hierarchy of the other is liberal, period. It may range from "moderately" liberal to "barking-mad" liberal, but it is liberal.
   
3. In saying "only one," I am saying that the Dem's essentially never are friendly to distinctive Christian political/social thinking.
4. In saying "sometimes," I am saying that many elements within the GOP are also suicidally hostile to that same thinking.
5. This particular news item (the No Spanking Bill) exposes the folly of those who say, "Christians shouldn't do politics, we should evangelize." It is a false dichotomy. We should do both, vigorously, and there is no reason why we cannot or should not. If we slight either, we are being unfaithful to the Word, as I argued at greater length here.
6. Leaving all other (and superior) considerations aside, the best thing a Christian can do for his country (—any country) is to bear faithful witness to Christ, to point sinners to Him, to be used of God to gain disciples.
   

Having said that, as we are engaged in evangelism, consider the following:

• The world has no idea what value to place on the unborn. Christians do.
• The world has no idea what value to place on the imperfect, ailing, or elderly. Christians do.
• The world has no idea what a just penalty for murder is. Christians do.
• The world has no idea of the value of private property. Christians do.
• The world has no idea what the parameters and goals of parenting are. Christians do.
• The world has no idea what marriage is, nor how important it is. Christians do.
• The world has no idea what sort of sexual behavior should be publicly sanctioned, and what sorts should not. Christians do.

So, in each of these situations, when the issues arise in the public square, what should Christians do?

Say, "I don't really want to talk about that, but let me tell you about Christ"?

Or, "I don't vote, write, speak, or debate on such issues. I will only vote for a measure proclaiming Jesus as sole Lord and Savior"?

Or, "I only care about 'spiritual' issues. Everything else can go to Hell"?

I don't think so. We're to be witnesses to our God and His wisdom in every area of our walk, every area of our lives. And that includes our engagement as citizens.

Clinton and Carter: two very considerate men

Many Christian brothers and sisters agonize in spiritually baffling denominations. I think of a very conservative brother holding fast to the fundamentals as a United Methodist pastor; I think of another serving in a United Presbyterian church. In the case of either of those bodies, if someone in another state asked "What would ______ church be like?", I'd have to answer, "There's no telling. The denomination is apostatizing or worse, but there are a very few within it still holding to the Word."

Ever thinking of others, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have made a move. I actually see it as a positive and helpful move. Now, pick your jaw up off the floor, and read on.

Rather than continuing to be a shameful, degrading, corrosive presence within the Southern Baptist Convention, both of these walking, talking (talking, talking, talking, talking, talking) spiritual trainwrecks are planning a big meeting, with a mind to distancing themselves from conservative (i.e. Bible-actually-believing) "elements" within the SBC.

As I see it, this is the first useful thing either man has ever done, apart from leaving office.

If the C's form some sort of organization, then prospective SBC attendants won't have to wonder where the church they're considering stands. If it isn't aligned with CarterClintIanity, it may be serious even about the edgy parts of the Bible.

Romney then... and now?

Mitt Romney, whom Hugh Hewitt and others are trying to shove down evangelicals' throats, had an opportunity many of us would pay good money to have: to debate Ted Kennedy in public.

Here's what he did with it.



Keep in mind that this wasn't 72 years ago. It was 12 years ago.

Romney's dealing with it by saying, "I was wrong on some issues back then."

Are you buying?

Dude. Killer deal. Seriously.

Edward J. Young was a towering scholar and a great lover of God's word. His three-volume commentary on Isaiah is a masterpiece, and you can get it at CBD for $17.99.

Of course, Young's insistent amillennialism does decrease the value of his treatment of the still-predictive portions. I first began reading through the set as a not-terribly-sophisticated young (no pun) Christian, and remember thinking constantly, "Good grief, everything can't be something spiritual about the Christian church!"

But that still leaves Young's very sensitive ear to the Hebrew text, love for the book's message, his interaction with the literature. I do wish a commentary of equal breadth and depth could be written by someone who combines those qualities with taking the text on its own terms, but that doesn't prevent me from commending it highly.

ALSO, they still have Charnock's Existence and Attributes of God for $9.99. This is a killer deal, also. If you've never read Charnock — whoa.

IN UNRELATED TAUNTING: ha-ha. Seems that old Blogger blogs are unavailable at the moment, and only new Blogger blogs are up. Like this one! It's Biblical (Hebrews 8:13)!

I have no use for Sen. John McCain, but...

...this is hysterical -- and it even makes a point.

Temptation to quit blogging

I think I feel most exasperated when I sweat my way through a post, re-read it a half-dozen times or more, chop and chip and shine and tune and refine, augment and expand; double-check my references; anticipate responses and try to pre-empt them, publish it, and then...

...someone comes and knee-jerks out a particular kind of, "Yeah, but X."

In this case, "X" represents one of three things (or a combo):

1. A re-statement of the very position I'd obliterated in the post, as if I'd never written the post.
2. An objection I'd already pre-empted in the post, again as if I'd never written the post.
3. A complete irrelevancy, written as if relevant, as if I'd never written the post.

Obviously, the common element is the "as if I'd never written the post." I stare at the comment, my face starting to flush, and sometimes I wonder: "So why do I bother to write?"

It's as if these people glance at the headline and the last paragraph, say to themselves, "Oh, it's about __, and he thinks __; well, what I think is __, so...." And then they write it.

Analogy alert. I'm no John Owen. Even saying that feels arrogant, as if anyone would ever suspect that I imagined that I was. But it's necessary to lay that down that as a preface to this question:

Do you think that Owen, after finishing "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," probably had someone say, "Yeah, but didn't Christ really die to make salvation available to everyone? You know, 'For God so loved the world'...?"

And do you think John Owen went into his room, slapped his forehead, looked Heavenward, and asked "Why? Why do I bother?"

Probably. (And good heavens, what would the great man think if he read Geisler or Hunt today?)

So I suppose we lesser lights should try not to mind.

But sometimes, it's hard.

So, you try to embrace the eternal perspective, you take some comfort in the many who express understanding and appreciation (whether or not they agree), you remind yourself of the hundreds or thousands who read, derive some profit, and lack the time or opportunity to say so. And you soldier on.

But don't even get me started on the people who repeatedly demand that you demonstrate or prove something that you already set out, insist that you didn't, then throw a gigantic tantrum over your refusal to devote the rest of your life to re-inventing the wheel on demand. (And add to that when some casual spectator glances over part of the argument and supports that demand? And solemnly criticizes you for not mortgaging your life to scratch every idle, pugnacious and irresponsible itch? For free?!)

Ay yi yi, like I said: don't get me started.

Postscript: yes, it's a couple of the comments at my last post at Pyro that re-started this thinking. They weren't all that bad; they just touched that nerve.

This guy really, really has issues with Piper

I've profited a good deal from John Piper's writings and conferences. I'd count myself a supportive admirer. But I'm not a fanatic. I ran into fanatics when I posted this essay on Pyro. In the essay, and in the comments, I made a very mild criticism of Piper's position on emotions. It was tempered, and it was exactly accurate — but I was dogpiled.

These folks were not content to say they disagreed; they accused me of lying, distorting, having no idea what I was talking about, making it up. It was nuts.

And that's what they do to someone who's basically a fan!

Wonder what they'd do with this guy.

It would take a lot of time to wade through what he has. I'll say this: he loses 50% right off for trying to be Melchizedek. But still, the evaluations should be weighed on their merits, or lack thereof.