Literal or paraphrase

I ran across this definition of a literal versus free translation the other day: “The more a translation unit uses fixed equivalents, the more it is considered literal, and the less that such equivalents are found in it, the freer it is considered.” (Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 125).

I like it, but it also raises some questions. Such as, what about the Cotton Patch Gospels? They definitely are not literal! But they use fixed equivalents. What am I missing here?

It really is a Trinity

The point to stress here is that the Spirit is more central to the story of Jesus than theology has usually acknowledged. It was by the Spirit that Jesus was conceived, anointed, empowered, commissioned, directed, and raised up. We emphasize God’s sending the Son and must not lose the balance of a double sending. God sends both Son and Spirit. Irenaeus spoke of them as God’s two hands, implying a joint mission (Against Heresies 4.20.1). The relationship is dialectical. The Son is sent in the power of the Spirit, and the Spirit is poured out by the risen Lord. The missions are intertwined and equal; one is not major and the other minor. It is not right to be Christocentric if being Christocentric means subordinating the Spirit to the Son. The two are partners in the work of redemption.— Flame of Love, pages 81-82

It's all ready and waiting for us

The potential for the holy life must be released by faith. It is not something that is entered into automatically by becoming a Christian. So Paul entreats his Colossian converts, “Let loose all the wonderful potential that was given you when you accepted Christ. Do so in an act of self-renunciation (death) and in an act of acceptance and faith (put on), so that the holiness which Christ came to give you may be yours.” There is nothing here of striving and struggling and constantly falling short of something which is outside of ourselves. Rather, we are invited to unlock a door in the new house that has been given us and to find there all the furnishings already in place.— Called to be Holy, pages 161-162

<idle musing>
I like the picture he paints here of a new house, just waiting for us. We only need to open the door. No striving, struggling, etc. Too easy, isn't it? That's probably the issue; we prefer to earn it, don't we?
</idle musing>

Still true today

It is astonishing, that many, within a few years, have maintained that it is right for a man to aim directly at his own salvation, and make his own happiness the great object of pursuit. But it is plain that God's law is different from this, and requires everyone to prize God's interest supremely.—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
The more things change, the more they stay the same...could it be that it's because humanity doesn't really change? Sure, we have the Internet, but we still have sin. If anything, the Internet has made sin more accessible.
</idle musing>

Limiting God

Let us stop demoting the Spirit, relegating him to spheres of church and piety. His role in creation is foundational to these other activities. The whole creation is home to the Spirit’s operations, and the cosmic fruits issue in new creation. The Spirit is the perfecter of the works of God in creation.— Flame of Love, page 63

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Most Christians are binitarians. Check that. Most trinitarian christians have a trinity (yes, lower case!) that is Father, Son, and Holy Bible. Go and do it! Imitate Christ (like you can do it without the power of the Holy Spirit!). No wonder you have so many failures in high place (they happen in low places, too; we just don't hear about them because they aren't scandalous enough). No power of the indwelling savior in the form of the Holy Spirit, no deliverance from sin. And no beauty in creation. You can't separate them. Physical creation is just one aspect of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work in creation...
</idle musing>

Sin cycle

So there is no excuse for anyone to say, “Oh well, I just don’t think I can live up to a standard like that.” Of course you can’t; the whole Old Testament teaches us that. But that is not the point. The point is: does God want to do this in us? Surely the answer is yes. And is he able to do it? Again the answer is yes. But now comes the frightening caveat. Yes, he is able to do what he wants if we will believe him to do it. Tragically, there are many people today who simply will not believe God to make them holy.— Called to be Holy, page 159

<idle musing>
Indeed. When we have bumper stickers that proudly proclaim, "Christians aren't Perfect, Just Forgiven," why should be expect holy living? If that isn't the epitome of heretical theology, then I don't know what is. When we have a major catechism that proudly proclaims that the grace of God isn't sufficient to deliver us from sin, how can we expect holy living?

And without holy living, scripture says we won't see God. Pretty scary...but it's just a matter of believing it is possible—by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, guiding, directing, empowering—indeed, living it—on a moment-by-moment basis. Believe and receive!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

It is not true repentance, to forsake sin on condition of pardon, or to say, "I will be sorry for my sins, if you will forgive me."—Charles Finney

A graduation

I just saw last night that Glen Stassen died over the weekend.

Most of you probably don't know who he is. I didn't until about 6 years ago. But my exposure to him was revolutionary. He (along with some others, but primarily he) is the author of the concept of Just Peacemaking.

I had been—and still am—a pacifist. Once I became a Christian, it seemed the only logically consistent course of action. I take the Sermon on the Mount seriously as the commands of Christ, not some high ideal that won't work (by the way, for a good study on the Sermon—aside from Bonhoeffer's Discipleship—you should try to find E. Stanley Jones's Christ of the Mount). But my pacifism always seemed to fall short of what I really saw in scripture. It wasn't until I read the last chapter in War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century entitled "Just Peacemaking Reduces Terrorism between Palestine and Israel" that it clicked. Just Peacemaking was the missing link in creating Shalom as opposed to just the absence of war.

I'm sure that the angels are rejoicing and that there is a major celebration on his homecoming, but the world is a poorer place because of his homecoming. May his many students carry on and expand the influence of Just Peacemaking.

Here are a few links to other tributes (with thanks to Jim Eisenbraun for them):
Peace is Possible
A Tribute to Glen Stassen

You can find his books by going to Google Books and doing a search.

Why create?

Sometimes the why of creation is revealed by the nature of God. He creates in a way that is consistent with his loving nature as a relational being. Not narcissistic or self-enclosed, God is inwardly and outwardly self-communicating a gracious being. Creation arises from loving relationships in the divine nature. God creates out of his own abundant interpersonal love—it is the expression of his generosity. No outside force compels it; no need drove the decision.— Flame of Love, page 55

a change of perspective

Thankfulness will be our normal attitude ([1 Thess. 5] v. 18) because, unlike the days when we were dominated by the “flesh,” we will no longer be thinking of all that we deserve that we never get. Rather, we will be astonished that we, who deserve nothing but eternal damnation, have been made the very heirs of heaven. When the “flesh” rules, it is constantly chafing at the “unreasonable” demands of God; not that his demands are unreasonable, but that the unsurrendered self finds all commands unreasonable. Now having exercised faith to allow the Spirit of Christ to fill us, we are amazed that God gives so much and asks so little. Has God changed? No, we have changed, with the result that we now see things as they are, and are filled with gratitude.— Called to be Holy, page 157

<idle musing>
Debbie and I were just discussing this very thing on our walk yesterday. I think one of the reasons why there is so little gratitude is because what we call repentance isn't really repentance. Finney, for all his problems, didn't let people think they were saved until they had a consciousness that a. They needed a savior, and b. they were consciously aware that they were forgiven and made new. Wesley had a similar mode of operation. No sinner's prayer for these guys. They wanted to see a life transformed by God. But they also knew that you can't encounter the living God and not know it. There was a very real sense of gratitude for what God had done in us through Christ and the Holy Spirit. Would that we had some of that now in popular evangelistic techniques...
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

If you aim at doing good for its own sake, then you will be happy in proportion as you do good. But if you aim directly at your own happiness, and if you do good simply as a means of securing your own happiness, you will fail. You will be like the child pursuing his own shadow; he can never overtake it, because it always keeps just so far before him.—Charles Finney

<idle musing>
Indeed. Reminds me of Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. He says essentially the same thing, but illustrates it from psychology. (Excellent book, by the way; highly recommended!).
</idle musing>

Handiwork

The Trinity underlines the fact that the world exists by grace. It was not strictly necessary. It did not have to exist. God did not need it, since he exists in Trinitarian fullness. The world exists not necessarily but freely, because God takes pleasure in it. God is like an artist who makes the world because he delights in self-expression.— Flame of Love, page 44

A truism

Right living rests upon right doctrine, and right doctrine is not right unless it results in right living.— Called to be Holy, page 157

<idle musing>
Definitely!
</idle musing>

Thought for a snowy Friday

It's snowing here—again. We're expected to get about 10-12 inches; so far we have about 8 inches of slushy, slippery, but beautiful snow. White snow, covering over the dirty remnants of our winter snows and the sand and mud that accumulate over the season. Reminds me of Isaiah..."white as snow." The contrast is even starker this time of year, before new life appears. But I digress; here's a snippet from Finney that seems to fit:

A person may believe that Christ came to save sinners, and on that ground may submit to Him, to be saved; while he does not submit wholly to Him, to be governed and disposed of. His submission is only on condition that he shall be saved. It is never with that unreserved confidence in God's whole character, that leads him to say, "Let thy will be done." He only submits to be saved. His religion is the religion of law. The other is gospel religion. One is selfish, the other benevolent. Here lies the true difference between the two classes. The religion of one is outward and hypocritical. The other is that of the heart, holy, and acceptable to God.—Charles Finney

Atheism's cause

Atheism is partly the result of bad theology, an unpaid bill resulting from failures in depicting God. How often have people been given the impression of God as a being exalting himself at our expense! One might be afraid of such a God, but no one would be attracted to love him. So often lacking has been the vision of the triune God as an event of open, dynamic, loving relations. It is not surprising that many have rejected God when there has been so little to attract then to him. Perhaps they would not reject as readily the God disclosed in Jesus, who is an event of loving relationality and relates readily to the temporal world.— Flame of Love, page 42

<idle musing>
Hmmm...written as if yesterday, addressing the claims of the "Young, restless, and Reformed" crowd...and right on the money. Who would want to spend eternity with a God that is only concerned with his glory? I find the God depicted in the Bible far preferable to the constructed God of the systematic Calvinist theologians...they need a good dose of Brunner! He was Reformed, but he got it right—God's actions spring from the Trinitarian loving fellowship within the Godhead.
</idle musing>

The way forward

If God’s will that his people be holy in their behavior is to be realized, it is not, above all, a matter of trying harder. That is “the flesh” about which Paul had just warned the Galatians, and about which he was shortly to warn the Romans. No, if we are to be the holy people that God has longed for from the beginning, it must be a matter for faith. This is precisely the point Paul was making in Galatians when he said that if we live by the Spirit we will not gratify “the flesh” (5:16). In our own strength and selfish desires we can never live God’s holy life. But if we live in the Spirit, we will produce that fruit which the Old Covenant required, but could not produce because of that twisted, self-centered spirit within us which Paul calls “the flesh” (5:17-6:10).— Called to be Holy, page 153

<idle musing>
Indeed. It must be by the Spirit of God. If it is done any other way, it won't be real. Reminds me of the story about Ben Franklin. He used to keep a little book where he recorded how he was doing on certain virtues that he felt important. After a while, he noticed that he was getting proud of his accomplishments, so he added another column for humility!

But that's the end result of striving—well either that or despair because you can't attain. It is only by the Spirit living within us that we can truly be holy and good...
</idle musing>

Thought for today

The true convert chooses, as the end of his pursuit, the glory of God and the good of His kingdom. This end he chooses for its own sake, because he views this as the greatest good, as a greater good than his own individual happiness. Not that he is indifferent to his own happiness, but he prefers God's glory, because it is a greater good. He looks on the happiness of every individual according to its real importance, as far as he is capable of valuing it, and he chooses the greatest good as his supreme object.—Charles Finney

There we go again

Theology always gets into trouble when its practitioners think they know what God is like apart from what revelation says God is like. — Flame of Love, page 33

<idle musing>
But we do it all the time, don't we? Lord forgive us! May we "tremble at your word" (Isa 66:2, 5)!
</idle musing>

High expectations

What is John talking about here [in 1 John 4:16-18]? He is saying that it is possible for a Christian to love God and others completely, in a finished manner. He is saying that it is possible for a Christian to experience a love which is, from God’s point of view, without defect. He is saying that it is possible for a Christian to experience an unreserved love for God and a self-forgetful love for others. In other words, he is saying that what Jesus commanded is not merely an ideal, and not even a possibility, but is an expectation. — Called to be Holy, pages 138-139

Thought for the day

We learn from what has been said, one reason why there is so much spasmodic religion in the church. They have mistaken conviction for conversion, the sorrow of the world for that godly sorrow that worketh repentance unto salvation, not to be repented of. I am convinced, after years of observation, that here is the true reason for the present deplorable state of the church all over the land.—Charles Finney