No, not that Paul.  Paul from Peter, Paul and Mary. 

I don’t know if you are familiar with the group Peter, Paul and Mary, but I have been a fan ever since listening to the only record my parents had of them when I was a child.  Great music and Paul’s a laugh (in an old-fashioned kind of way, says my wife).

Then, this Christmas, my Dad gave me a CD with that album (and many others) on it, and this led me to look up the group on the web.  I was amazed to find them still going!!!  But even better was finding Paul’s personal webpage and the part where he writes about how he became a Christian.  A sample [yes, there don't seem to be many capital letters]…

…i’m aware that for real or imagined, for now or forever there is no denying that i am kneeling in front of my Creator and that every hair on my head is known, every minute of my life is common knowledge and there is nothing, no information to which He is not privy. i am transparent, revealed and in my awkwardness i realize just how long i have been ‘away’…there was nothing i could say in defense of my life thus far…

Check it out.

Well, I’ve finished part four, and it occurred to me (before it was pointed out to me) that I am doing the educational theory thing - going in a spiral, i.e. considering many positions over and over again each time a new peice of information is introduced. Now, that is how I think through things, but it doesn’t make for concise and easy-to-read posts, so I have been thinking about revamping the lot…maybe. Whatever I decide, it is likely to be on hiatus for a little while longer, anyway.

So, part five, or one of the “side-posts” will be written eventually.

[Update: Divorce: Why John Piper is wrong on this can be found by following the link.]

(This post is not intended to deny the fantastic work the translation team did on the ESV, but rather point out that while it is good for some purposes, it does not work as well for others).

It was a normal evening, and Paula and I were reading a chapter of the Bible before we went to sleep. We are going through Numbers (may as well - it has to be tackled some time) and it was my turn to read. I turned to Numbers 4 - and by the end of the chapter I was cured from being an ESV-Only-wannabe.

Here is how it happened.

The chapter started well. Sure, it was not easy to read aloud - it’s a lot of description about things we’re not 100% familiar with - but as I went on I began to get more and more annoyed - particularly with this one recurring phrase, “cloth of blue”.

Numbers 4:6 Then they shall put on it a covering of goatskin and spread on top of that a cloth all of blue, and shall put in its poles.

Numbers 4:7 And over the table of the bread of the Presence they shall spread a cloth of blue and put on it the plates, the dishes for incense, the bowls, and the flagons for the drink offering; the regular showbread also shall be on it.

Numbers 4:9 And they shall take a cloth of blue and cover the lampstand for the light, with its lamps, its tongs, its trays, and all the vessels for oil with which it is supplied.

Numbers 4:11 And over the golden altar they shall spread a cloth of blue and cover it with a covering of goatskin, and shall put in its poles.

Numbers 4:12 And they shall take all the vessels of the service that are used in the sanctuary and put them in a cloth of blue and cover them with a covering of goatskin and put them on the carrying frame.

“Cloth of blue”??? If I was reading silently, I probably wouldn’t have noticed anything wrong, but because I was reading out loud, the phrase sounded incredibly clumsy and for a very good reason…it is!!! We don’t say, “Cloth of blue”, we say, “Blue cloth!”

If only this were my sole complaint of the chapter…alas, it is not! There was also a “cloth of scarlet” halting the flow of my reading in verse 8, and seven “coverings of goatskin”’s tripping me up, not to mention some other phrases with exactly the same clumsy wording.

Please, ESV translators, ease of reading was meant to be one of the traits of your version! I know no translation is perfect, and I deeply appreciate the desire to translate the Bible so as to allow readers the option of interpreting things themselves, but perhaps you need a new Christian who is not steeped in awkward English Bible-speak to point out your blind spots - this is certainly one of them!

We are now reading Numbers using the Good News.

Update: Since that fateful evening, I have learned that a Church I like and respect, Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has recently adopted the ESV as its preaching Bible. I personally don’t think it’s a bad decision at all (I use the ESV most of the time in my preaching), but I have to say I don’t think all the reasons given for the change are convincing. See some of the responses (and non-shrill ones at that!) : this one by Rick Mansfield and others at Better Bibles Blog, here, here and here. There are links to other responses in those posts, also. It’s always good to get another perspective or two.

A few months ago I saw God on My Side, Andrew Denton’s film documentary about his visit to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in America.  It features interviews with a wide-ranging group of people: puffy-haired 70’s style evangelists, a passionate flakes-of-gold-on-your-hand-that’s-God’s-anointing Pentecostal, an Arabic Christian, a media-savvy laidback Phd in Theology, an Australian from UCB, a woman who has been married 9 times (or was it 10?), an end-of-the-world expert…every stripe of Christian imaginable…oh, and a ventriloquist doll!

Have you ever looked around and wondered at the hugely diverse - and often embarassing - array of people that make up the Church?  Even in our city there are Christians who believe and do things far differently from ourselves and in our hearts we subtly add to Jesus’ requirements for Church membership: Yes, sir, as soon as you get the right theology/worhip with your eyes closed/get a haircut we’ll be glad to consider you a brother in Christ!

We need to remind ourselves that Jesus’ requirements are far simpler: if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:9).  There are no other requirements to join God’s family.

You can choose your friends but you can’t choose your relatives.  Let’s love our brothers and sisters in Christ whether or not they are like us or make us feel good.  Let us love them because they, too, trust Jesus.

Well, it does, but not always.

Scattered thoughts:

The personal, subjective valuing that love is wants to share the value they find in what/who they love. They want to display the worth they attribute to the object of their love. They want to “show off”:

1. God loves Himself (via the Holy Spirit) and displays His glory (via the Son).

2. We love ourselves and so want to present ourselves in a good light. This becomes a sin if it presents a distorted/false image of ourselves or if we consider our glory more important than God’s.

3. If we love someone, we want to display their value (the value we see) to others. If we value them subjectively more than their objective value we wish to improve their objective value for their own good and so it can be displayed to others.

Generalisation: Men are more concerned with objective value (glory) and women are more concerned with subjective value (love). Hence, Father’s tend to push for growth and mothers tend to accept children where they are at. The ideal is to love regardless and push for growth for their benefit.

4. God loves His elect and is changing them so their objective value moves toward the value He already subjectively gives them…

BUT

5. …He loves the non-elect and does not change them. God does display the corrupted glory of non-elect people and so in that way it could be said that His love for them leads to glory, but ultimately, they will not be glorified but destroyed by everlasting torment, even though God (Who does not change) will still love them.

Comment is being made about a video gospel presentation by a Pastor Francis Chan. I haven’t seen it - we are still working with Windows 98 (shameful, I know) and so can’t view it, but Michael Spencer, aka Imonk, has a summary of the content and the problems some people have with it (and a response).  [Update: Have just been told by Mr. Dos that I can download an earlier version of QuickTime and watch it with that.  Thanks again, Glenn].

In essence, some Calvinist and/or Reformed believers out there in cyberspace have a problem with saying, “God loves everyone, does not want anyone to go to hell and so invites (commands) repentance and faith in Jesus so they can be saved”. Instead, they say, “God is angry with the world and saving people from hell is about His own glory and is done completely without regard to any decision or response on our part”.

To this we should reply: Just because God is angry at sinners does not mean he does not also love them or want us to tell them of His love (seen in His provision) or require response.

But the issue led me to another point. Lesser love can act like hate.

One of the still incomplete series of short posts I have been writing has been exploring the relationship between love and glory (Love and glory - different or the same?, Love and glory - Is love inspired by glory?, Love and glory - Then what is love inspired by?, Love and glory - Does love lead to glory?). A yet “unposted post” looks at degrees of love. The basic idea is that lesser love can act like hate in light of a greater love.

Here’s a simple example: a man will (ideally!) love his wife more than other women, but this does not mean he has no (brotherly - again, ideally!) love for other women. Yet, in a situation where he is to glorify his wife (eg. praise his wife’s person), he will deliberately downplay or ignore other women in the process. He will help his wife achieve her goals before - and even at the expense of - helping other women. In a crisis, he will choose to care for his wife before other women. But none of these things means he hates other women. And if helping another woman will ultimately demonstrate His wife’s worth even more he will do that also.

God is love. His very essence and being is love. But He loves His Son more than any other human. Choosing some and not others is for His Son’s (and ultimately His Own) glory, but this does not mean He does not love everyone and want them to avoid hell. Rather, it illustrates that He loves Himself and His Son to a greater degree. (To those unfamiliar with Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine, saying God “loves Himself…to a greater degree” could be a problem - just accepting that He loves His Son to a greater degree would be enough to complete the illustration).

This, of course, could lead to the minimising of God’s love for mankind as many seem eager to do. But how minimal can a love be that causes God to cry out to people to repent or to compare Himself to a hen wanting to gather her chicks under her wing (referring to rebellious never-to-be-saved Jews)? The truth is that God’s love for people is greater than anything we can imagine - and the greater we understand that love to be, God’s love for His Son is seen to be greater still and the cross becomes an even brighter display of His glory.

Indeed, we can say this to those within the Calvinist/Reformed tradition who are concerned about Francis Chan’s statements : If you minimise God’s love for all people, you are also guilty of minimising His glory.

One of the last paragraphs in Imonk’s post hits it on the head:

…if our theology has brought us to the point that we are careful to not speak too extravagantly about the love of God, something is seriously wrong. If we can read the Prodigal Son or the woman at the well and not see the passionate Lover of our souls, we’ve simply gone too deeply into our own theological mazes.

Check this out. You’ll need to wait a moment to go through the whole series of pictures.

This link was sent to me by Glenn who suggested it may provide inspiration for a post.  Well, here are the thoughts that come from it…

1. Yes, we rich Christians should steward our money better.  There will come a day when God will require an account from us for what we have done with the resources He gave us.  Spending money on trinkets, expensive goods and huge church buildings when we could use that money to help people who are hungry is something Jesus is likely to ask us about.  I personally could do better.

2. But Jesus does not teach that we should never spend money on trinkets, expensive goods and huge church buildings.  In fact, in one place Jesus rebuked people for suggesting the poor take priority over an extravagance (regardless the motives of one of those people, the suggestion was nixed).

3. Instead, in this, as in many other areas, Jesus has allowed freedom.  (See also the examples of giving at the beginning of the New Testament Church.  Peter told Annanias that there was no obligation to give anything in Acts 5:4).  The most we can do is encourage Christians to develop an approach to money and the poor informed by the Bible, led by the Spirit and with their hearts and minds fully captivated by the love of Jesus.  To do otherwise lends itself to legalism dressed in social justice rather than Jesus-centred-giving.  You can recognise social justice legalism because it judges people acceptable to God based on how they use their money.  You can recognise Jesus-centred-giving because it judges people acceptable to God based on Jesus’ death on the cross, and lovingly encourages godly use of money based on that.

I’m a little concerned, therefore, by the message at the above link.  It makes a good point about stewardship, but without one mention of Jesus it is in danger of shaming people into guilt-giving rather than motivating people to give generously because of Jesus.

Still, if you can assume a biblical understanding of Christian giving in those who see them, the pictures might work.