2008: Year of the Study Bible

I think that anything we can do to make the Bible more likely to be read, the better. For example, my oldest son has a New Testament that is designed and published like a magazine for boys. I don't love this particular translation or edition, but if he will read it, that is what is most important. If you can imagine a niche Bible, there is likely a publisher that already produces it. I think the thing I am a little uncomfortable with is the idea that we look for a Bible that reflects our own style. We want a Bible that is about us. Sounds a little selfish, does it not? On the other hand, that does not mean we all need to use only a black, leather-bound copy of the same version.

These niche Bibles often market to the consumer to a degree that it is easy to forget that we are talking about the Word of God. These Bibles often make it difficult to understand the Bible in its original context and turn out to be little more than a fashion accessory.

On the flip-side, Bible publishers seemed to return to what they do best in 2008. They produced high-quality study Bibles. Study Bibles seem to be intended for a more general audience, the whole church. I like study Bibles. I think they do a phenomenal job of assisting the reader glean more insight from his reading. I have at least five study Bibles. They are the NIV Study Bible, the Life Application Study Bible (NIV), the Scofield Study Bible III (ESV), the ESV Study Bible, and the NLT Study Bible. The last two were just released in 2008, and are among the best. My major concern about the ESV Study Bible is that it could almost as honestly by titled the Extreme Calvinist Study Bible. My personal favorite, both as a translation and as a study Bible is the NLT Study Bible. It does a great job of taking into account the various orthodox interpretations and let the reader interpret the text rather than leading the reader to the editors' interpretation.

Do you use a study Bible? Which one(s)? What are your preferences in a particular edition of the Bible?

The Next Billy Graham

One week from now, we will have a new President. I have some opinions about all of that, but I will keep them to myself. President-elect Obama has asked Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his innauguration. Of course, Warren accepted. There have been a number of reactions to this. It has proven to be a little sticky for both Warren and Obama. Because of Mr. Obama's positions on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage, many conservative Christians have taken the opportunity to use this as ammo against Warren. Cultural liberals, especially the homosexual lobby, have accused Obama of teaming up with Hitler (or worse). Obviously, neither of this is true. Liberals lump Warren in with ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christians, and they would never claim him as their own. The reverse is also true.

Because of the attention given to Warren, along with his hosting a couple of political forums, the media is making the case that Warren is the next Billy Graham. I have a great deal of respect for Billy Graham. His testimony has been above reproach in the areas of finances and marital fidelity. He typically did not get involved in partisan politics. This opened the door for him to preach in countries that have traditionally been closed to the Gospel. Between his large crusades and television specials, he has preached to more individuals than anyone in the history of the church. I respect that. I also know that he has primarily been an evangelist, partnering with local churches for follow-up. This gave him the luxury of not needing to (publicly) clearly define a number of doctrinal positions.

Rick Warren is a church planter and a local church pastor. He has been responsible not only for evangelism, but also for developing a plan for discipling converts and growing a church in the community.

I do not think Rick Warren is the next Billy Graham. I do not think there will be another Billy Graham. I think Rick Warren is the next Rick Warren. I think God works in seasons. Seasons come and go.

Christian History (Part 1)

Recently, I was given a one year daily devotional centered around Christian history. Honestly, I love this stuff. When I received this book, I had just turned in my assignments for a Christian history class I am taking. Because of this, I had been giving some thought to what the value is of studying the history of the church. Today, I want to post some of my thoughts on this. I will post the end in the next few days. 

In my opinion, one of the greatest areas of ignorance in our society today is the knowledge of our own history as well as the history of the human race in general. This is a very sad state of affairs and I find it especially bad when it is the case with Christians. We who claim to be Christ’s followers should, more than anyone, have a general understanding of history – especially that history which relates to the events covered in the New and Old Testaments and our own religious practices. As followers of Christ, we do have a history. It is a rich, colorful history. One important thing to note about history is that – especially for Christianity – our history determines our future. In The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzales writes: “Without understanding that past, we are unable to understand ourselves, for in a sense the past still lives in us and influences who we are and how we understand the Christian message. When we read, for instance, that ‘the just shall live by faith,’ Martin Luther is whispering at our ear how we are to interpret those words – and this is true even for those of us who have never even heard of Martin Luther.” (pg. xvii)  In light of this, I think there are several reasons why we as Christians should make knowledge and understanding of history an important part of our lives.

The first reason for the importance of studying history is that God is the creator of history. History is not just something that self-absorbed humans came up with. God Himself created history when He gave us an inspired account of our own history in the Old Testament. If the creator of the universe thought it important enough for us to understand where we came from and the importance of past actions on our lives today, then it is certainly a subject that we ourselves should pay attention to.

 

Another reason to study history has to do with Christian orthodoxy. Just as having a proper hermeneutic depends on understanding the historical context of the Bible, so does orthodoxy and an understanding of orthodoxy depend on historical knowledge and understanding. Orthodoxy in the Christian community is having an understanding of the truth as it has been developed and established in the past and staying faithful to it. This of course requires that you have an accurate understanding of those who have gone before you, what they believed, and the context under which they lived.

What is a Missional Church?

there are an unbelievable number of labels for churches today. of course, there are the old stand-by denominational names. let's not forget names like conservative, liberal, fundamental, evangelical, etc. then there is the latest generation of monikers. these carry descriptors like purpose-driven, seeker sensitive, emerging, emergent, and - one of the latest names - missional. a church can, and probably should, be more than one of these. over the course of a few scattered posts, i am going to share some thoughts and answering some questions related to the term "missional church".

the term "missional church" is only about ten years old, but there are hundreds of thousands of hits on google for the term. with that many web pages related to the term, it is anybody's guess as to how many definitions there are for it. since everyone seems to be taking the liberty to define it how they see fit, i think i will do the same. i am finding it difficult to boil it down to just a few words. the origins of the phrase seem to be in discussing missio dei, or the mission of god. perhaps by the end of this post, i can cobble something together.

i wish i could avoid describing missional in negatives, but i am going to start there. one thing missional is not is missions. missions has been a program or a department within the local church. missional is a descriptor for the local church. it describes the whole church body.

there are many church leaders who describe themselves as missional. what they mean by that varies by leader. one hallmark of missional seems to be gaining consensus. this is the idea that being missional should focus on the kingdom message of jesus as recorded in the synoptic gospels. this does not take into account the other teachings of scripture. in the march issue of christianity today, todd billings describes it like this: "hearing (brian) mclaren and others, the kingdom often sounds like nothing more than a set of ethical activities in which anyone - christian, muslim, or atheist - can participate. the centrality of jesus christ himself can be eclipsed by the ethical 'message of jesus'." i love the idea of being missional, but not at the sacrifice of the truth of the word of god. it seems you can be in any faith tradition, keep that doctrine (or no doctrine at all), and be missional. many who claim the term missional say that traditional church has focused on doctrine to the exclusion of the rest of the mission of god. i cannot argue with that. most missional churches focus on the earthly aspects of the mission of god to the exclusion of evangelism, discipleship, and solid doctrine. the truth is that it is not an either/or, it is a both/and. i contend that you cannot be missional without embracing both aspects of the role of the church in the world. i would like to clarify something. i love the term missional church. i think it is what god has called the church to be. i do not like the meaning most missional churches give it. it seems to focus too narrowly on good works. if we are to truly be missional, we must be about sharing the good news of the savior, teaching true doctrine, and meeting the needs of those around us, both within and without the church. that is to be missional. missioal should be the sum of what the church is.