stuff I think about – Page 16

Pot and kettle

I saw this posting, and it reminded me that people are the same, no matter how they define themselves.

To summarize the post, this woman apparently describes herself as emerging, and is looking for a job in a “culturally relevant church”. She found a job description which seems perfect for her. (You really need to read that job description. Wonder if we could use it here….) Then she finds out that this particular community does not accept women in the lead teaching position, and watch the fur fly.

She and the folks on her blog proceed to take this church apart, in unflattering, ungenerous, and (dare I say) unChristian ways. Apparently, Ms. Pittman has already determined what an emergent, culturally-relevant church believes, and the ordination of women is on the list.

Others who respond agree with her in the most uncharitable terms, post email addresses of the church staff, predict they’ll “never emerge” (is that a goal, anyway?), and in general buffet the church for not thinking the same way they do. Sounds like something the modern churches would do.

One staff member from this church responded to the posting, trying to describe his church’s situation, but he was roundly dismissed as being disingenuous (read: lying), and the flogging went on.

If you skip down to the bottom, the third-to-last post (this morning, anyway, from Anonymous at 1:52pm) says more or less what I was thinking: this group of emergents is no different than the groups they are emerging from. In our zeal to get the world (or the church) to see our point of view and do something about it, sometimes we forget the big picture, which is to continue to look like Jesus in the midst of it.

Whether the issue is ordination of women, or incense in the service, isn’t one of the main points of the emerging discussion to “broaden the tent”, as it were, and allow more freedom of expression — not just different expressions — into the church?

Back to the Bible

On his web site, Brian McLaren gives some suggestions about songwriting. A follow-up is here, with some more technical suggestions for songwriters.

I appreciate both articles, but neither suggested something I have wondered for a while. What’s wrong with putting actual Bible verses or passages into the songs? I’m going to sound like an old geezer now, but [insert old man voice] I remember when I could recognize the scripture from where the authors drew their inspiration. If you were to look in my Bible, you would see little musical notes I’ve drawn in the margins, next to a passage I recognized in a song. Not many songs from the last several years have been noted, and it’s NOT that these songs aren’t biblical; it’s just that they aren’t Bible.

Perhaps one of the reasons behind this phenomenon is the Bibles that songwriters are using. There’s nothing wrong with the NIV or NLT for personal study or meditation, but there isn’t much there in the way of memorable prose that isn’t borrowed from the good old King James Version. I know, I know, it’s just my own opinion, but that’s what a blog is for, right? 🙂

The authors of the KJV, and its modern descendents like the NASB or (my preference) the ESV, spent a great deal of time and effort creating prose that was lyrical as well as meaningful. Today’s songwriters may do well to take a look at translations such as these when searching for just the right words. As an example, take a look at the NLT version of Is. 9:7, as compared to the ESV — especially the last sentence — and see what I mean. (Hey, I’m not just looking around for the worst example; this is one of the passages McLaren mentions in his article as a place where songwriters should go for inspiration.)

I know that McLaren discouraged the use of “King James English” in new songs, and I heartily agree that the days of Thee and Thou are over. However, am I the only one who would rather sing about “zeal” instead of “passionate commitment”? Let’s not throw away some of the meaningful expressions, phrases, and imagery we can find in the KJV family just because we want to be (post-)modern and contemporary. A little ancient to go with our future might not be a bad thing.

Batgirl’s view of the Bible

The Bible is a tool to help us interact with the One True God. As such, I believe the actual value of it is realized as we see how God dealt with people and situations in the past. We see his character revealed.

We get glimpses of his detailed involvement with people and events and we come to expect some of the same in our lives and situations. Therefore, it is an infinitely useful book.

It draws us to ask God to interact with us with patience and mercy as he did the Israelites in the wilderness.
It invites us to ask God to provide for us as He did the Egyptians through Joseph’s wisdom during their abundance and famine.
It challenges us to seek God in such a way that He would talk to us face to face as He did with Moses.
It encourages us to have faith to believe Him for those things that seem unbelievable like Abraham and Sarah and their expectations of having children more numerous than the stars.
It reminds us that following Him means leaving other things behind like the disciples in the New Testament.

If we read it for knowledge, we are missing the point. It is a book of action. Therefore, the Bible must provoke us to action for it to be most effective.