Bivocational

The first Monday in September is the Labor Day holiday in the US.  The day honors American workers whither their job has prestige or is considered menial.  

Twice this past week I’ve talked with parents concerned because their adult children have lost their jobs and face a difficult task of finding a new one.  In one instance, the son is in his fifties and though that’s not supposed to matter, we know it sometimes does.  For them, Labor Day is a bit of a mockery.

Of course, some Americans are struggling to make ends meet by holding down two jobs.  That’s not easy but it leads me to remind you that every Christian is supposed to have two jobs.

We Christians forgot that for a while;  instead, we tended to divide activities into the sacred and the secular.  It was once popular in the Middle Ages when people thought the work of the priest or the monk was more holy or spiritual than the work of the farmer or merchant.  You might put dinner on the table by plowing fields but you couldn’t really serve God.

Then the Reformation rediscovered the Biblical concept of vocation and work.  Vocation becomes more than our occupation, it becomes our divine calling.  Any task, however mundane or lacking in glamour, can be done to bring God glory.  Every worker could be a Kingdom worker.  So, in that sense, every Christian has two jobs.

In fact, anyone who does only the one job, the one done simply for the sake of earning a wage, often finds the work tedious and boring.  The writer of Ecclesiastes understood this.  In trying to demonstrate the wisdom of allowing God to be the center of our lives, this writer cast himself in the role of one who lived as a secularist, as one who did not live with God in mind.  Listen to the way such a person views work.

15.  People who live only for wealth come to the end of their lives as naked and empty-handed as on the day they were born. 16.  And this, too, is a very serious problem. As people come into this world, so they depart. All their hard work is for nothing. They have been working for the wind, and everything will be swept away.

 17.  Throughout their lives, they live under a cloud-frustrated, discouraged, and angry. 

Few of us can afford to work for without pay, but fewer among us can find any kind of satisfaction if we work only for the money.  We need that second job.

In his most famous sermon, Jesus laid out some important principles for dealing with the temptation of frenzied materialism.  At the same time, he lays the foundation for the Biblical view that every Christian worker really has two jobs, one that involves working at an occupation to provide for fundamental human needs and a second job that focuses on the building of the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 6:25.  So I tell you, stop worrying about your life, as to what you will have to eat or drink, or about your body, as to what you will have to wear.  Is not life worth more than food and the body worth more than clothes?

 26.  Take a good look at the wild birds, for they do not sow or reap, or store up food in barns, and yet your heavenly Father keeps on feeding them.  Are you not worth more than they?

 27.  But which of you by worrying can add a single minute to his life?

31.  So never worry and say, `What are we going to have to eat?  What are we going to have to drink?  What are we going to have to wear?'

 32.  For the heathen [those who think this is all there is and God doesn’t care anyway] are greedily pursuing all such things; and surely your heavenly Father well knows that you need them all.

33.  But make His Kingdom and righteousness your chief aim, and then these things shall all be given you in addition.

 34.  Do not be over-anxious, therefore, about to-morrow, for to-morrow will bring its own cares. Enough for each day are its own troubles.

Jesus isn’t telling us that we shouldn’t plan for tomorrow.  Instead, he was warning us against the frenzied, focused activity that makes the accumulation of wealth the highest good. 

Such persons are in danger of selling their souls for job security.   Making God’s concerns our chief concern will keep us from compromising our commitment to him to make the big deal.  Knowing that God will take care of us allows the believer to take the sometimes-necessary stand for justice and fairness in the workplace or to refuse to participate in shady business practices. 

The Christian who has the right priorities knows you can do the “Kingdom work” in the guise of doing the “paycheck work.”

That’s why the Bible calls us to see the possibilities implicit in even the most menial and mundane of work. 

Paul had this idea in mind when he instructed the slaves who were part of the Colossian church.  He knew their work could be tedious, boring, and thankless but he wrote to them, “Whatever you do, work at it wholeheartedly as though you were doing it for the Lord….”

I once knew a salesman who joked that he hoped he never sold his customers anything made on a Friday or a Monday.  He said the factory workers were so eager to get away for their weekends they did poor work on Fridays and so hung-over or angry about being back at work, they often botched their Monday tasks.

That salesman may have been exaggerating the situation but most of us have known the frustration of buying some item that didn’t work or didn’t include all its parts.  Mistakes happen but I wonder if they would happen less frequently if every worker embraced the Bible’s call to working with consistency.  Of course, it calls us not simply to consistency, but to consistent excellence.  After all, if we’re famous for doing shoddy work, who will pay attention when we speak on behalf of Christ?

We Have the Opportunity to Make the Workplace a Venue for the Advancement of the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom advances as men and women come to acknowledge God’s right to be the sovereign over every aspect of their lives, to accept his assessment of their greatest spiritual needs, and to receive his provision to meet those needs.    When that happens, we are transformed.

Do you remember the story of Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail?  They were beaten and imprisoned for supposedly starting a riot.  At midnight, as they sang songs of praise, the jail shook and the doors suddenly opened.  The frightened jailer—who could have been executed for losing his prisoners—cried out, “What must I do to saved?”  Paul told him, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ an you will be saved.”  Lots of sermons leave it there, especially evangelistic sermons.  And that’s okay.  But let’s look a little further.  Luke tells us what happened after the jailer believed:

At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.  The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God…

Paul and Silas eventually went on their way, released to continue their work.  I’d like to believe that jailer was changed.  Perhaps he continued to serve as the local jailer but he was different.  Instead of showing cruelty to his charges, he showed compassion.  Perhaps he made sure they had clean straw to lie on, fresh water, and maybe the meals were prepared with a little more care. 

As more and more people in a workplace become part of God’s Kingdom, the character of that workplace will change.  No, it won’t be perfect but some of the more negative characteristics that mark so many workplaces may begin to disappear.  Wouldn’t it be great to work in a place where petty jealousies, racisms, or intrigues were laid aside in favor of virtues which aim at making others better, helping others do their work?

We Have the Opportunity to Bring the Grace of God to Men and Women Wounded by the Tough Times of Life.

The people you work with have lives beyond the office, the assembly line, the classroom, or the break room.  Sometimes those lives bring intense pain and sorrow.  They need someone who not only brings a listening ear but also will speak the promises of God into their situation.

Do you remember Paul’s condition when he came to Corinth?  In his own words his he arrived at Corinth “in conscious feebleness and in fear and in deep anxiety.”

Several influences helped to bring about a change in Paul’s situation and one of the most important was found in the workplace.  While in Corinth Paul took a temporary job making tents, recalling a profession he once engaged in.  In that workplace he met Aquilla and Priscilla.  I’m convinced this Christian couple helped Paul deal the crisis he faced.

Providing this lonely missionary some much-needed companionship contributed to his new birth of enthusiasm for his work, not the tent making, the other work.  The Kingdom work.

Your words of encouragement might be just what a tired coworker needs to keep going—at work and in the rest of life.

We Have the Opportunity to Discover the Surprising Richness That May Characterize Some of Our Coworkers.

Max DuPree’s father made an amazing discovery about one of the longtime workers at the famous clock-making company Howard Miller.  The discovery concerned a millwright—the person who kept in working order the complicated pulleys that ran the machinery.  This key worker died unexpectedly.  DuPree tells the story:

My father, being a young manager at the time, did not know what to do when a key person died, but thought he ought to go visit the family. He went to the house and was invited to join the family in the living room.

The widow asked my father if it would be all right if she read aloud some poetry. Naturally, he agreed. She went into another room, came back with a bound book, and for many minutes read selected pieces of beautiful poetry. When she finished, my father commented on how beautiful the poetry was and asked who wrote it. She replied that her husband, the millwright, was the poet.

It is now nearly 60 years since the millwright died, and my father and many of us at Herman Miller continue to wonder: Was he a poet who did millwright's work, or was he a millwright who wrote poetry?

As a Christian you come to the workplace with the understanding that each person you encounter reflects God’s image and shouldn’t be thought of as common or ordinary.  From the custodian to the CEO each co-worker may reveal something surprising about the wonder of God’s creation.  Each person may prove the truth of the psalmist’s words, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

When you come to the workplace with this attitude toward your coworkers, you may make some amazing discoveries.

Conclusion

 Labor Day is about our Paycheck Jobs.  We think about the labor we have done to put food on the table.  As Christians, we also remind ourselves about our other job—the Kingdom Job.  When you came to Christ you took that job.  If you trusted Christ as a child, you had that job before you ever earned a paycheck.  You may have been laid off from the job that provided your salary; you’ve never been laid off from that Kingdom Job.  You may have retired after long years working for a factory or firm; there is no retirement from that Kingdom Job.  It’s a job for life.  It sounds tough, but the benefit package is something a union boss can only dream about.

Yet, think about this.  Pat once told me about something that happened at one of the schools where she worked.  During one summer, a new teacher signed up to start work at the beginning of the new school year.  She received the letter about new-teacher orientation.  She received the letter about the first day of work for teachers.  She received the letter about the day the student would arrive.  Each of those days came but this new teacher wasn’t there.  She simply never showed up for work.  There was no call to the principal, no letter of explanation, nothing.  The principal had to scramble to find someone else to do her work.

You may find this a strange story.  Most of us would.  Yet many, many Christians have heard countless times about their Kingdom Job but have not shown up for work.

Harvest Insurance

Galatians: A Study of Christian Freedom

Lesson 21:    Harvest Insurance                       Galatians 6:7-10

This is the next lesson in the series on Galatians.  Once again, the words in [brackets] were not in the sermon as presented.

In the world of farming, farmers sometimes buy harvest or crop insurance to help cover their losses should an expected crop fail.  This reflects the reality that sowing and harvesting can be a risky situation.  In these verses, Paul is telling us that there is certainty in the matter of spiritual sowing.  

⁷ Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. 

This verse is usually quoted as a warning, which it is.  But the verse is as much a promise as it is a warning.  

“Do not be deceived…”  Could mean what is included in the phrase, “Don’t kid yourself.”  Certainly there are those occasions when we’ve tried to convince ourselves that the usual consequences of certain behavior can be short-circuited.  Maturity suggests we know better than  to “sow wild oats and then pray for a crop failure.”

[On the other hand, does the form of the statement “Do not be deceived” suggest that someone was attempting to do just that, deceive the Galatians into believing their behavior would not have an impact on their lives?  Most translations put the words in a form that leaves the matter open but others stress the element of self-deception.]

Philips emphasizes the certainty of the outcome, saying, “ Don’t be under any illusion.”   

The basic idea of the word is to go astray or, in the passive, to be deceived, either by others or by self-deception.  It is used both ways in the New Testament.  

While the legalistic false teachers may have deceived some of the Galatians into believing there would be no serious spiritual consequences in trying to blend a works-based salvation with one based on grace, the responsibility for recognizing error and holding onto the truth rested on the individual believer.  [Later, Gnostic false teachers would claim there were no consequences in living a licentious lifestyle since only “the spirit” is important; church leaders would decry that folly as well.]

This is important because God takes truth seriously:  “God is not mocked.”  The root of the word translated “mocked” refers to the nose, so the idea might be expressed as “God is not One to turn up your nose at.”  In other words, “You don’t sneer at God.”

Rejecting the gospel which rests upon what God has done in Jesus Christ is to sneer at God.  In the eighteenth century, Joseph Priestly rejected the idea of the atonement because he claimed it made God look bad; in truth, we usually reject the atonement (where the cross is so central) because it makes us look bad.  We also sneer at God when we reject God’s assessment that “all have sinned.”

After these words, Paul cites a simple truism:  “You will reap exactly what you plant.”  If you plant corn, you will grow corn; if you plant beans, you will grow beans.  No one at the state fair will show off a giant watermelon and say, “You know, when I planted those peppers I sure didn’t expect this.”  You get what you sow.  Yes, even a city boy like Paul knows gardeners have to contend with weeds, but he’s not attempting to write, “Gardening for Dummies”; he’s making a point about living.

⁸ If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; 

Spiritually speaking, there are two ways we may sow.  First, we may  “sow seed in the field of  [our] lower nature,”  as the New English Bible phrases it.  Other such functional translations give further insights:  

—“If they plant to satisfy their sinful selves….” (EXB)

—“Those who plant only for their own benefit….” (CEB)

—“The person who sows through human means….” (ISV)

Clearly, Paul is speaking about those persons who are totally self-centered, centered either on their material desires or on their imagined capacity to win God’s favor.  In either case the harvest will be worthless.  

Listen to John Stott’s vivid words about sowing to the flesh:

To ‘sow to the flesh’ is to pander to it, to cosset, cuddle and stroke it, instead of crucifying it.  The seeds we sow are largely thoughts and deeds  Every time we allow our mind to harbor a grudge, nurse a grievance, entertain an impure fantasy, or wallow in self-pity, we are sowing to the flesh.  Every time we linger in bad company whose insidious influence we know we cannot resist, every time we lie in bed when we ought to be up and praying, every time we read pornographic literature, every time we take a risk which strains our self-control, we are sowing, sowing, sowing to the flesh.  Some Christians sow to the flesh every day and wonder why they do not reap holiness.  Holiness is a harvest; whether we reap it or not depends almost entirely on what and where we sow.

As Paul describes the aftermath of sowing to the flesh, he warns, you will reap corruption from the flesh.  The language suggests the product of such self-centered sowing will be “decay and ruin and destruction.” (AMP)  Whether this impacts the eternal fate of these individuals is not absolutely clear.  Paul will write something similar to another troubled church.  Listen to what he says in I Corinthians 3:10-15:

10 [E]ach one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person's work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

This brings us to the alternative we face in life’s sowing, the second way:  but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. 

Those who sow with the spiritual dimension in mind will see a totally different result.  Several translations speak of sowing “to please the Spirit.”  This is far from the self-centered sowing of those who sow to the flesh.  It puts God’s will above our will.

In saying those who sow in this way “will reap eternal life from the Spirit,” Paul does not mean they will earn eternal life.  Instead, the idea seems to be that the product of such sowing will have eternal spiritual value.

The late James Montgomery Boice saw this entire passage being on the subject of money.  While not every commentator holds that view, his comment on the verse helps reveal the dynamic of what Paul is talking about.

If a man spends his money on what gratifies his fleshly nature, he will reap a fleshly harvest.  And since the flesh is mortal and will one day pass away, the harvest will pass away also.  On the other hand, if a man uses his money to promote spiritual causes and to feed his spiritual nature, the resulting harvest will remain.  

Now, Boice saw the principle had broader applications and involved not only individuals but congregations as well.  If a congregation refuses to support good teaching, the result will be “corruption,” perhaps, in the form of legalism and doctrinal error.  If a congregation does support good teaching, the result will be spiritual strength and stability.

So, how we use our time, thought-life, resources, and energy produces a harvest.  If we follow the Spirit’s lead, remain true to the gospel, and maintain a community where love prevails, we will make a difference as a church.  If we foolishly use our time debating about matters like diet, holy days, or rituals and waste opportunities to advance the kingdom, we will fail as a church.  

 Having said that, I’m going to move on; because, though this verse has its negative side, Paul stresses the positive and encouraging.

⁹ So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, 

Over the years, I’ve discovered one of the greatest enemies of consistent Christian service is discouragement.  Growing “wearing in doing what is right,” Paul calls it.  We might say, Let’s not wind down in doing the right thing.  

Notice this:  Paul does not say, “Don’t you grow weary….”  He says, “Let us not grow weary….”  Maybe he put it that way because he knew he was just as susceptible to discouragement and weariness as any other Christian.  

We’ve all heard the stories of missionaries [like the Judson’s] who work month after month, year after year, and see little or no spiritual harvest.  Perhaps they end their tenure with only a handful of converts, nothing the boards back home will celebrate.  

You don’t have to “sow on Burma’s barren plain” to know that kind of frustration and disappointment.  

One of the most frustrating and discouraging moments I had in Texas took place on a rooftop.  I had been there for a few years when we needed to replace the roof on the education building.  So, some of the deacons, their sons, and I were doing the job when a strange car drove past the church.  (In a town of 88 you tend to notice strange cars.)  Well, this car had several people in it who clearly were not from this village a few miles from the middle of nowhere.  

One of the men on the roof said, “Keep driving, [here he used a racial epithet], you’re not welcome here.”  I was stunned.  For years I had been preaching about brotherhood, the breadth of God’s love, how each person we meet is someone for whom Christ died.  It was as if I had made no impact on his prejudice.  

For days afterwards I wondered “What’s the use; why even try?”  What did Paul say to this situation?  How about this:  “If they don’t listen to what you say, say something different.  You know, talk about how those people out in Hollywood need to repent and straighten up their lives.  Talk about how exciting it was going to the Southern Baptist Convention and hear that great crowd sing, ‘How Great We Art.’  Talk about how lucky the Lord is to have such people in his church.”  No, Paul would say, “Keep preaching brotherhood, keep preaching about the breadth of God’s love, keep preaching about how each person is someone for whom Christ died.”  In other words, don’t quit.

Of course, the range of “doing what is right” is large, not just limited to preaching.  Such doing good may include the generous use of our money, spending time with the lonely, speaking a word of witness, and many other acts of service and ministry.  These all may be described as “sowing.”

It is here that Paul announces the harvest insurance.  

…for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. 

The promise is clear and direct “we will reap.”  Our sowing will produce its harvest.  The words translated as “harvest time” refer to an appropriate time, the right time.  We may not see our sowing produce for several seasons but we will see it produce.  My preaching may or may not have produced change in the hearts of those back in Texas, but perhaps the lives of my own two sons show something of a harvest.  Each of them have great friendships with people from other races.

We might easily become impatient in waiting for the harvest but we need to trust God’s timing.  Plant corn in the spring and you expect it to be grown in the fall.  Spiritual sowing is not so predictable.  But the harvest will come.

Of course, the final words of this verse are significant, “if we do not give up.”  Giving up guarantees an empty field at harvest time.  But Paul doesn’t expect the Galatians to give up, he thinks better of them than that.  He expects them to keep on sowing, to keep on doing good.  So, he gives them some direction in that task.

¹⁰ So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, 

It is hard to imagine a time when we wouldn’t have “an opportunity” to do good for others but our chance to make a difference may sometimes be limited.  Some windows of opportunity are narrow, so we need to be alert to the chance to do good on Christ’s behalf.  

The breadth of this work is clear; we are to “work for the good of all.”  The Amplified Bible expands on the idea of working for the good of all by saying we are not only to be “useful or profitable to them, but also doing what is for their spiritual good and advantage.”  We are to embody a universal benevolence.  Jesus spoke of God’s love being like the sun that shines on “the evil and the good” or like the rain that falls on “the righteous and the unrighteous.”  This kind of indiscriminate good will should be reflected in our sowing.

Having called us to this indiscriminate good will, Paul adds a note: we are to do good “especially for those of the family of faith.” To some, that might seem a little provincial, narrow, but then you have to remember the preceding phrase that calls us to “work for the good of all.”  Since that phrase would have included our Christian brothers and sisters, why did Paul risk a charge of being redundant?   Here’s what I think.

1. Sometimes, we can become so focused on the needs of the world outside the church we forget the needs of those closest to us.  Paul wanted the saints to be attuned to the situation of those within the congregation as well as the situation of those who had no part of the church. To have shown love only to their fellow-Christians would have been contrary to “the law of Christ,” but to have shown benevolence to outsiders while neglecting their own would have made the Christians “worse than infidels.”
2. Paul must have known the conflict initiated by the false teacher had severely divided the church.  Doubtless there were charges and counter-charges, wounded feelings, and bitterness.  By reminding them of their status as “the family of faith,” he was urging the members of the congregation to lay aside those divisive memories and move ahead in caring love for one another.
3. Then, too, Paul must have known how important it was for the Christians to demonstrate a healthy love for one another.  In time, that would become effective evidence of the church truly being a community worth hearing.

Paul could call for this demonstration of benevolence because he was sure the seeds those Christians were sowing (whether in the form of stewardship or service) would produce a harvest.

Vanity, Vanity or a Matter of Enthusiastic Ignorance

Please note:  the following essay contains a term not usually heard in a Sunday school.  Or, so I assume or, perhaps, hope.  We did not have a regular church service this morning so I am presenting this essay instead.

On a recent trip to Austin, I visited a used bookstore—not an unusual activity for me.  While there, I overheard a conversation between two young men—eavesdropping, alas, is also not an unusual activity for me.

One of the young men was helping the other find a Bible.  I assume the second young man was a new believer or someone interested in finding out more about Christianity.  The young man guiding the search pointed out the various options the available Bibles had, such as concordances and reference notes.  I had just about tuned out the conversation when the guide said, “Now, this is the King James Version.  Don’t get it; it’s crap.” 

Now, in American slang that term is often used for “rubbish,” “junk,””shoddy,” or “trash.”  So, the young guide to Bible choice was saying one of the most influential books in the history of English was worthless.  I was amazed at that assessment of the first translation I ever read, the only translation my father ever owned, the translation used by Edwards, Wesley, Finney, Moody, and countless lesser-known preachers proclaiming the good news; the translation that sustained and comforted Christians for four centuries.  Perhaps, he was only attempting to let his light shine before his young friend in pointing him toward finding what would become a lamp unto his feet.  Actually, I think it was the problem of enthusiastic ignorance.

As I thought about the conversation I recalled an incident that occurred years ago when I was a pastor in Texas.  A young couple, Steve and Jen, and their two children began attending our church.  I visited them in their home on the remote corner of a local ranch.  It was a modest little house built to be the home for a “hand” and his family.  The family appeared to be thriving.  The house was comfortably furnished and there was even money for extras like karate lessons.

I enjoyed my first visit to their home, especially because that had such good things to say about the church and my preaching.  My second visit was different.

The family attended our services for only one or two more weeks then suddenly stopped coming.    I called after they had missed two Sundays and talked with Jen.  She briskly told me they would not be coming back.

This differed so much from their earlier attitude I felt I had to find out what had soured them toward the church.  When I asked if I could visit them again, Jen said I could but I should not expect to change their minds.

The greeting I received on the second visit was more cordial than I expected but both Steve and Jen seemed distant.

I asked, “Have I said or done something to offend you?”

Steve spoke, “It’s that Bible you use.  It’s not the real Bible.  It takes out part of the Bible.”

I tried to assure him the New International Version was a reliable translation but he was unconvinced.

“The King James Version,” he said, “is the only real Bible.  All these new translations have parts missing.  They can’t be trusted.”

“What makes you think that,” I asked.

“My karate teacher told me,” he said, making it clear there would be no argument I could raise to overrule his Sensei. 

This was a few years before The Karate Kid so I was unaware karate instructors also functioned as philosophers, counselors, and, in this case, theologians.

My Austin experience suggested we had gone full-circle.  To Steve, the NIV was “crap” and the KJV was solid gold; to the anonymous Bible reviewer in Austin, the KJV was “crap” and the NIV was—actually he dismissed the NIV, calling it “old-school.”  The two Bible hunters left before finding a Bible and before I learned which of the many translations available the “expert” favored.

Helping a new convert or a seeker find a Bible is a good thing; sowing seeds of ignorance is not so good.

Some of my fellow pastors graduated seminary thoroughly proficient in Greek and, sometimes, Hebrew.  I managed to pass the required courses.  Perhaps as a consequence I’ve surrounded myself with various translations.  I own dozens, some of them rare and hard to find.  I often quote them in my preaching to give nuances to familiar verses.  My fondness for varied translations made me doubly interested in the conversation I overheard in Austin.  (Okay, deliberately listened to.)

Now, the obvious cure for ignorance is knowledge.  So, I would have loved the opportunity to sit down with those three young men-Steve, the Bible “expert,” and the new convert/seeker—and Jen so I could explain that the KJV in the seventeenth century and the NIV in the twentieth century were produced by a collection of the finest scholars available, who were all committed to the task of producing a faithful and accessible translation of the Bible.  Faithful and accessible.  

Some of the KJV’s translators were models of piety; some were not (Richard Thomson, who helped translate Genesis through 2 Kings, was “a party hound” who often went to bed drunk.[1] Thomson also appears to have been an Arminian which, in some circles today, would have caused a greater scandal than his drinking would have).  All but one of the fifty-four translators were ordained; some regularly preached before royalty, some labored quietly in their studies; one would serve as Archbishop of Canterbury and be charged with manslaughter (acquitted); some were young, some were old; and, for at least one, English was his second language.[2]

I would have explained a few phrases, some verses, and the occasional passage found in the KJV are missing in the NIV and other newer translations; missing, because later scholars subsequently concluded they should have never been there in the first place.  The long ending of Mark is probably the most noteworthy example.  I would have explained that losing these passages changed no Christian doctrine, unless handling snakes should be considered a pillar of faith.

Even the loss of I John 5:7-8--“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”—does not impact the doctrine of the Trinity.  The passage—not found in older manuscripts—is referred to as the Johannine Comma and is considered to be a late addition to John’s letter.  Reportedly, Erasmus did not plan to include the verses in his Greek New Testament because no Greek manuscript contained them, though they are found in the Latin Vulgate.  Under pressure from church authorities, he finally agreed to include them if just one Greek manuscript containing them could be found.  Miraculously, such a manuscript was found, a manuscript dating from the sixteenth century when Erasmus was working.   Dutifully, he kept his word and included the questionable verses.  Because the King James translators used Erasmus’ Greek testament, the verses found their way into the King James Version.  That hardly makes the King James Version crap and it certainly does not suggest recent translators are eviscerating the Bible. 

I would explain a major problem with the KJV is not the quality of the translation or the Greek text on which it is based (though subsequent discoveries would lead to changes in what that text should include), but the fact it is written in early seventeenth century English.  And no one speaks early seventeenth century English.  We can understand it but it doesn’t flow easily from our tongues or our pens.  Shakespeare’s English dates from the same time as that of the KJV and most of us recall reading the plays from editions with copious footnotes explaining words and phrases.  Of course, Shakespeare is known to have invented many words (the KJV’s translators largely avoided that).   We needed those notes in our literature classes because English changes. 

If you don’t think so, read a scary story by Nathaniel Hawthorne and a scary story by Stephen King. 

By the way, the notion that Shakespeare (whose writing career was near its end in 1611) was actually involved in the translation (an old charge) is groundless.  That Shakespeare’s use of English may have influenced the KJV’s English is certainly plausible; Shakespeare was influencing the English of most literate persons in England at that time.  If there were deliberate borrowings, subsequent translators have, no doubt, found them and corrected them—if those phrases failed to accurately render the meaning of the original. 

All languages change.  During the nineteenth century, many German immigrants settled in the central Texas hill country.  They attempted to keep as much of their culture as possible, yet within a couple generations they were speaking a dialect that came to be known as “Texas German.”   

A young woman from New York City came to the seminary as a student.  Because she was Greek and could speak the language, she assumed she would have no problem with the mandatory New Testament Greek all theology students were required to take.  Instead, she almost failed the course; two thousand years had made that much difference in the language.

Of course, we still study Shakespeare as he wrote, not in “translations.”  This is because how the Bard said what he said is important.  At the same time, it is the message of the Bible that is important; we can’t translate the Hebrew and Greek literally because it would be extremely awkward to read.  We would probably understand it but find reading it wearying.  Consider this:  “Thus indeed loved God the world that the Son the only begotten he gave that everyone believing in him not should perish but might have life eternal.”  If we were first century Greeks and happened to be literate, we would have no problem with this verse.  Guess what.  If you happened to be a twentieth-century Greek, reading John 3:16 in first-century Greek, you would struggle just like you did when your English teacher asked you to read Chaucer.  First-century Greek and twentieth-century Greek are not the same; the language, like English, has changed over the centuries.  It’s the nature of language to change.

Of course, I doubt Steve, who left a church he and his wife liked because his karate coach condemned the NIV; and the two young men I overheard a quarter of a century later would listen to me.

Some attitudes are persistent and universal.  Supposedly, shortly after the introduction of the Revised Standard Version one saint was supposed to have said, “If the King James Version was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.”  While I suspect that’s apocryphal, the follow account comes from someone who was there. 

A friend who teaches Spanish in college was living in Spain when an attempt was made to introduce a new translation to the Protestants there.  These believers who had suffered so much in previous centuries were very committed to the Spanish Bible they had used during those hard times and beyond.  They greeted the new translation with outrage.  My friend reported that several churches around the country had bonfires where the new Bibles were burned.[3]  Change is hard.

But let me be clear, simple resistance to change doesn’t explain everything: calling the NIV “old school” was provincial; calling the KJV “crap” was just stupid.  It would be like calling Tony Bennett a “talentless hack” because he doesn’t sing like Eminem.  Of course, some modern singers (Harry Connick, Jr. and Michael Bublé, for example) pay homage to Bennett by copying his style.  Perhaps this explains the popularity of the New King James Version, a translation that attempts to maintain the link to the seventeenth century version.  But I digress.

At the same time, having problems with King James English is not a matter of generations.  A couple months before my conversation with Steve, my wife, Pat, had an exchange with a church member who was in her early sixties.  After service one Sunday, she asked Pat, “What Bible does Jim use?”  Pat answered, “It’s the New International Version.”  “Okay,” the woman said, “I’m going to get it.  This is the first time in my life I understand what the Bible is saying.”

Ultimately, ignorance and fear produce attitudes like those of Steve and his Sensei.  It was easier to see a conspiracy afoot to rip some key element from the Scripture than to examine the impact of a having a better grasp of the original text and the changes in the English language might make on the task of translation.  However, had either of them been asked what those key elements ripped from the Scripture might have been, I doubt they could have said. 

Those suspicious of new translations often fail to appreciate that most translators are as committed to the Scriptures as they.  This commitment prompts them to produce translations that bring God’s word to people who need its message.  Yet, people like Steve and others, are overwhelmed by their fears, never considering those fears may have no basis.

While there have been translations designed to promote certain theological agendas (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation, for example), most of these have had little influence in the larger Christian world and their agendas were quickly discerned and condemned.  By the way, the story that the translators of the King James Version transliterated the Greek word “baptizo” to
“baptize” to avoid endorsing the practice of immersion is probably overstated.  Anabaptists apparently did not practice immersion at this time (though that is debated) and English Baptists did not adopt immersion as the mode of baptism until the 1640s.  Of course, I believe immersion was the ancient mode of baptism; I just don’t think the KJV’s translators were attempting to hide anything from the public.  But, again, I digress. 

Why is it so easy for Christians to distrust the scholars who have devoted their lives to ancient languages than it is to thank God for their commitment?  Why do we assume the worst about change, insisting some sinister motive lies behind a new translation?  Why do we insist our taste—in music, worship style, and Bible translation—is spiritually superior to that of a fellow believer?  Why do Christians so often prove the adage: “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?” 

For years I’ve been puzzled by how easily Christians distrust their fellow Christians.  I doubt I will resolve the issue in this essay.

Instead, let me end with a few more words about translations.  Decades ago I heard a speaker say that there was a new translation of the New Testament being produced every month.  He wasn’t speaking only of English translations but a trip to the bookstore may lead you to believe he was.  Over the years, I have collected dozens; some are still being published, some are mere footnotes in the history of translations. 

How do you choose a good translation?  Again, I believe most translators are sincerely attempting to make God’s Word accessible; some do that more effectively than others.  So, here are the questions I would ask of any translation.

1.  How does it describe itself?  The following distinctions, while generally valid, are sometimes difficult to apply.  Still, I think they remain useful.

 A translation claims to have followed the original text, rendering the author’s message through a word-for-word or an idea-for-idea approach.  Consequently, under the heading of translations, there are several categories.  A dynamic equivalent translation may be described as being somewhere between a literal translation and a paraphrase, though some linguists might object to that description.  The term, coined by Eugene Nida, focuses on a “sense-for-sense” rendering of the original with the aim of trying to produce the same effect on the modern reader as the text made on its first readers or hearers.  A “formal equivalent” or word-for-word translation attempts to follow the original text with little change from one language to the other.  The New American Standard Bible is a popular translation following the “formal equivalent” philosophy and the New English Bible and The New Living Translation primarily use the “dynamic equivalent” philosophy.  The New International Version is a translation using a blending of both approaches. 

Later in his career, Nida preferred the term “functional equivalence.”  If you regularly read my sermons on this blog, you will know that I often put words into the mouths of the Biblical speakers in an attempt to get at the impact of what they were saying.

A paraphrase is a much looser rendering of the ideas found in the original text; in fact, it may be thought to employ an radical dynamic equivalent approach.  A paraphrase should aim to faithfully represent the Biblical author’s ideas but would not claim to be a literal reproduction of that author’s words.   The Living Bible, published in the 1960s, is a paraphrase; The New Living Translation is a genuine translation.  The similarity of names has generated confusion.  Some paraphrases, like The Message, can be fun to use but I wouldn’t make them my primary version for study. 

2.  Is the version the product of a single individual or committee?  Some remarkable scholars have been able to produce great translations while working on their own, but generally it is better to have a team of coworkers who will attempt to check each other’s work. 

3.  Related to this, are the members and backgrounds of the translation committee public?  Do they possess academic credentials that would suggest they have the ability to translate faithfully?  Is the group balanced denominationally?  If not, do they make it clear they are attempting to avoid any bias in their work? 

Speaking of bias, it seems to me if the author’s meaning is unclear or open to more than one meaning, integrity demands translators should preserve that ambiguity. 

For example, I Timothy 3:11 literally begins “Women must likewise be….” Paul is addressing the duties and character of deacons in this passage and scholars differ about whether he is speaking of women who are the wives of deacons or women who are, themselves, deacons or deaconesses.  Some modern translations come down on one side or the other; the English Standard Bible says “Their wives,” while the Common English Bible says “…women who are servants in the church….” Other translations maintain the ambiguity or offer the alternatives, either in the text or in footnotes.  Interestingly, the KJV renders the words as “their wives,” while the older Wycliffe translation simply says, “women.”  By the way, two translations claiming to reflect the Jewish background of the early church differ in how they translate the phrase, the Complete Jewish Bible saying, “the wives,” while the Orthodox Jewish Bible says, “Nashim (women) serving as Shammashim….”[4] While I have my own opinion regarding the proper understanding of Paul’s words, I prefer translations avoid making the choice for the reader.

If the version you are considering is produced by a denomination, you should be aware some denominational preconceptions may appear in the translation.  By the way, I have a Bible version that claims to be the first translation to reflect the Biblical perspective of total abstinence.  It suggests Jesus turned water into grape juice.  That’s still a miracle but somehow it raises questions about the translator’s agenda.

Well, I hope the young seeker in Austin found a Bible and wasn’t too confused by his guide.  I hope he was not left believing he should distrust or discount anything said by someone quoting a version other than the one his guide approved.  I hope he becomes part of a Christian community where the Bible is treasured and studied, a community where he is free to carry the translation that speaks to him.  I hope that, as he sings the hymns of faith in that community, he comes to appreciate the beautiful phrases from the King James Version found in so many of those hymns.  Above all, I hope he discovers and embraces the good news that is at the heart of his new Bible.

---

[1]  David Teems, Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010, p. 199.  This book is an almost light-hearted account of the production of the translation.

[2]  Much of this background was derived from A Visual History of the King James Bible by Donald L. Brake with Shelly Beach, Baker Books, 2011.  Archbishop George Abbott (d. 1633) accidently killed a gamekeeper with an arrow during a hunt in 1621.  Abbott, who believed he was shooting at a stag in the bush, was subsequently acquitted of manslaughter charges.  The incident troubled his conscience for the remainder of his life.

[3]  In the United States, similar bonfires were fueled with copies of the RSV when it was first introduced.

[4]  A Shammash is an assistant or helper in the synagogue.