I want to ask this question here because I think we have probably the most diverse set of voices in the blogosphere. Except maybe for CNET.

Recently I had a conversation with someone who was adamant that because our church used the New Living Translation of the bible in our pews we were somehow less “biblical”. Of course this person was arguing vehemently that the King James Version bible is the truest form of scripture. By no means is this person dumb or a KJV 1611′er by any stretch.

So I have to ask…Really? In my experience and my study the KJV version is probably the worst for translation accuracy. So I’m miffed why people fight so hard for this.*

Thoughts?

*THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE MESSAGE!

Tags: kjv 1611, people, thoughts?

*UPDATE*  An earthquake hit Oklahoma today.  4.0 on the Richter.  No word from Pat yet on the pact that Oklahomians had made with the devil.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html

Not much comment is needed for this one.  And no, I’m not sorry about the title.  I probably didn’t put it strongly enough.

The people in Haiti need our prayers, our relief and support.  We should mourn with those who mourn, not look for ways to suggest that they sold their souls to the devil and got their just deserts.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine. I told him that all marriages are mortal. He immediately became offended and said, “No way! My marriage is not mortal!”

I laughed at him and said not only was his marriage mortal but that if he didn’t recognize that fact and act accordingly it would increase the chances that his marriage could become sick or die. Of course, this was met with more angst. We ended up having a great conversation. He may or may not comment on this post, I don’t know.

I am preparing to do a communications seminar for a church next month. This is part of my transition from Graduate student to counseling/therapeutic professional.

We’re going to talk about what I believe is the most important thing for a couple to focus on in order for their marriage to survive. We’re going to talk about communication (6 principles guaranteed to improve communication in any situation) and we’re going to talk about the mortality of marriage.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our marriages are mortal. Everyone’s marriage is mortal. It does not matter how much you want to say that you will never get divorced or that your marriage will never die. It could and we have less control over than we’d like to admit.

I commented to my wife the other day that it seems every time I turn around I’m learning about someone new getting divorced. Some have been married for just a few years and some have been married for many years.

There is a hard reality about marriages. For every 100 couples that gets married this weekend better than 50 of them will end up in divorce. Every one of them thinks that it will be someone else.

I think that many people think that as long as they refuse to acknowledge the D word everything will work out. I admit I used to think this way. There is at least two problems with this type of thinking.

First of all, a marriage requires two people to work on it. A person I know once said that marriage is something you possess and do. The trick is you don’t possess it or do it alone. You do it with someone else. Sadly, that person can decide to walk away and there may be nothing you can do about it.

A second problem with this line of thinking is that it does not allow you to look realistically at your marriage. To say that our marriages cannot die is a lot like saying that our bodies cannot break down. It just isn’t based in reality.

When we say our marriages are not mortal, we can delude ourselves into thinking everything is OK when it is not. Worse, we can become too scared to admit that we have problems in our marriage. This fear may prohibit us from seeking professional help in counseling for our marriage.

The truth is your marriage, my friend’s marriage and my marriage is mortal. They can all die, which is why we must be vigilant in protecting our marriages. We must cultivate them.

When things are going ravishingly well, we must work at it. When dry and difficult times come we must work at it.

Admitting that our bodies are mortal does not mean that we want to die prematurely. The same is true for marriages. When I was married I made a promise to stay that way until death separated us and I meant it.

Denying that my marriage is mortal doesn’t make that promise any stronger. It does not make my marriage stronger, in fact I think it makes it more vulnerable.

By admitting that it is fragile, and extremely valuable I am admitting that it is something I have to work on every day.

As a result of thyroid cancer and the issues surrounding it, film critic Roger Ebert can no longer speak, eat, or drink.  In a recent blog post, he addressed the latter two issues.  Although Ebert’s artistic bent causes the post to meander a bit — like I’ve got any room to comment on lack of brevity — his bottom line is that he doesn’t miss food that much, but misses the dining experience.

But there is a segment of the post that jumped out at me.  I have to quote it at length so you can see where this is coming from:

I dreamed. I was reading Cormac McCarthy’s Suttree, and there’s a passage where the hero, lazing on his river boat on a hot summer day, pulls up a string from the water with a bottle of orange soda attached to it and drinks. I tasted that pop so clearly I can taste it today. Later he’s served a beer in a frosted mug. I don’t drink beer, but the frosted mug evoked for me a long-buried memory of my father and I driving in his old Plymouth to the A&W Root Beer stand (gravel driveways, carhop service, window trays) and his voice saying “…and a five-cent beer for the boy.” The smoke from his Lucky Strike in the car. The heavy summer heat.

For nights I would wake up already focused on that small but heavy glass mug with the ice sliding from it, and the first sip of root beer. I took that sip over and over. The ice slid down across my fingers again and again. But never again.

One day in the hospital my brother-in-law Johnny Hammel and his wife Eunice came to visit. They are two of my favorite people. They’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, and know I’m not. I mention that because they interpreted my story in terms of their faith. I described my fantasies about root beer. I could smell it, taste it, feel it. I desired it. I said I’d remembered so clearly that day with my father for the first time in 60 years.

“You never thought about it before?” Johnny asked.

“Not once.”

“Could be, when the Lord took away your drinking, he gave you back that memory.”

Whether my higher power was the Lord or Cormac McCarthy, those were the words I needed to hear. And from that time I began to replace what I had lost with what I remembered. If I think I want an orange soda right now, it is after all only a desire. People have those all the time. For that matter, when I had the chance, when was the last time I held one of those tall Nehi glass bottles? I doubt I ever had one from a can.

I understand Ebert’s point about missing the dining experience (he goes into that issue later in the post), but this passage is the part that hit me hard.  Johnny posited the theory that when God took away one thing, He gave something else.

This reminds me of Job 1:21 :

The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.

This is often interpreted as saying that God’s sovereignty means that He can do whatever He darn well pleases and that we ought to bless His name, regardless of how we see the circumstances. And while this is true, there also seems to be another component as well, perhaps not to be derived specifically from this verse, but in what we learn of God’s nature throughout Scripture.

Jesus, in and of Himself, is sufficient for our every need.  And we ought to always strive to recognize that.  When God takes something from us (for our own good, or to test us, or both), that hole in our lives somehow always winds up being just the right size and shape for Jesus to fill.  But He is also gracious and recognizes our limitations as finite beings. And so, He often gives us more tangible things to fill that void.  For example, when it comes in the form of another person, a friend of mine refers to that person as “Jesus with skin on”.  But regardless of the nature of the gift, our challenge is always to worship the Creator, not the creature who is standing in for (and provided by) the Creator.

It also puts me in mind of Psalm 37:4 :

Delight yourself also in the LORD, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.

The grab-it-and-blab-it crowd would claim that this verse indicates situations in which God provides for us things that our hearts desire.  That is sometimes an accurate interpretation of the verse. But, it seems that it is not so much an issue of God providing the things that our hearts desire, as it is that He provides the desires themselves.  In other words, the more we delight ourselves in the Lord, the more He will change our desires to align with His will.  And then, in something of a circular manner, God often does provide the things that our hearts desire, because our hearts desire His will.

Now if I can just convince God that His will includes that red Lamborghini over there ….

Let’s start the week off right with a little fun.

It has been reported that sen. Harry Reid made some racially charged statements concerning pres. Barack Obama. Now many are calling for his resignation as majority leader among other things.

As it turns out, the Pres. has accepted Reid’s apology and some are even defending Reid.

Then there’s this happiness:

And there’s more.

This teaches me a couple of things. First, racism is still a problem in this country.

Second, there is an extreme double standard about race in this country too. Some get a pass; some do not. There is nothing different about Reid’s comments and those made by Trent Lott several years ago–comments that cost Lott his career in the senate. Why is there is a double standard?

Third, we should all choose our words carefully. It could very well be that these statements were given in a context that is different than just the soundbites (or quotations) we are hearing of. Nevertheless, words mean things and people are listening to our words.

So I’m not making any personal point because I do not have any particular opinion. What I am interested in is your opinion: Should Reid resign? Is there is a double standard? Will race ever not be an issue?

This is a different kind of post for me and I realize that this sort of post can be dangerous and cause all sorts of hate and discontent. I also realize many of you dislike Anne Coulter and many dislike Al Sharpton (and some dislike Geraldo and Fox News and me). Be that as it may, try your best to keep this civil and adult.

Share this Post

There’s this dance that Christians like to do with each other that has two steps or movements to it:

Step 1: Place foot in mouth.
Step 2: Laugh.

It’s a really simple dance that we find ourselves doing quite often. It normally involves us making a joke of somebody else or something others might consider serious thus giving offense. A few years ago a family that we had been encouraging to attend finally came to church where I was preaching. This was a major step for them. One Sunday he wore some very colorful and bright suspenders which I made a joke about. I intended no offense and although the joke itself was not one of derision or even sarcasm, I apparently struck a nerve. If he got offended so easily, wouldn’t he have gotten just as offended over something else? Probably. But since I can’t control what others think and do, I’m left with choosing words and actions based on how they affect others.

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Ephesians 4:29

I know that that verse has been overused and abused, but we need to continually keep it in mind. In 1 Corinthians Paul calls the Christians in that community worldly and not spiritual because they are fighting over issues that are nothing in the Kingdom of God. Much of what Paul writes is in response to dysfunctional relationships and most of his commands are about what it looks like to love others. In fact later in 1 Corinthians Paul says that, “love edifies.” Few people can have a positive relationship where they bicker, complain, and tear each other down in joke like fashion. I must give the caveat that it can happen, I have one of those rare relationships with Tim Reed, a previous writer for this site. Maybe it’s cathartic for us but we can have that kind of relationship because we also encourage and edify when we need to do that. And quite frankly, what we say isn’t true and nobody thinks it is.

But for most of us, most of the time, we don’t know if that “joke” was actually a stab or just nothing. Or sometimes it seems that that “just kidding” line or smiley is just a mask for what we “know” to be a statement that person believes. (Of course we don’t know, but we like to assume.) There’s the classic jokes about how Southern women can get away with saying the most rude and awful comments about others as long as “bless their heart” immediately precedes or follows the comment. We do that up North with “Don’t get me wrong” or “I love them, but.” Or if what we are about to say is really mean we might combine the two.

Now don’t get me wrong, I love you all, but you all are turning into a bunch of mean spirited, antagonistic, backbiting jerks. Bless your hearts. Let’s start growing together toward maturity and seek to encourage, teach, pray for, mourn with, rejoice with, challenge, correct, and be corrected with love and humility.

I just finished reading Have a Little Faith by Mitch Albom. It’s a short book (249 small pages) that tells the story of two people: one a Jewish Rabbi and the other a Christian Pastor. It’s a wonderful little book and I recommend it to you. I don’t think you are going to find every aspect of the book appealing, and much of it will leave you wondering how someone (namely, Albom) could come so close to something so beautiful and come away with so little (I found the last sentence a rather unfitting conclusion to the book even if it is a good thought nonetheless).

One of the stories told in the book is that of Pastor Henry Covington who started a ministry in Detroit, Michigan called I Am My Brother’s Keeper. Pastor Covington’s story is beautiful and full of grace. It was in a chapter about Pastor Covington that today’s thought overwhelmed me.

I thought about how churches and synagogues usually build memberships. Some run schools. Some host social events. Some offer singles nights, lecture series, carnivals, and sign-up drives. Annual dues are part of the equation.

At I Am My Brother’s keeper, there were no dues, no drives, no singles nights. Membership grew the old-fashioned way: a desperate need for God. (Mitch Albom, Have a Little Faith, 217)

The story that led Albom to write this is wonderful and alone makes the book worth its price. Please note: This is not a criticism of the way churches do things. It is, rather, a positive affirmation of how Pastor Covington serves his God and community and how God, through Jesus, meets desperate people in desperate situations.

Have a nice weekend everyone. Be blessed and a blessing.

at least three times in the past couple days i have seen people take a quote, change the meaning, then argue against it. in all three cases the changing of meaning was in extent. a person made statement of possibility or probability or limited in scope. this was then turned into an all inclusive universal truth and argued against.

for example, the original comment may have gone something like this;
“if you hike to the bottom of the grand canyon you may fall off a cliff and die”

to which someone responds:
“what do you mean hiking the canyon means i’ll die! i’ve known plenty of people who have hiked the canyon and lived…”

i’m not sure why this happens. maybe it’s sloppiness and haste, maybe it’s just expecting the worst of people, maybe it’s just the heat of rhetorical battle, maybe it’s just easier to argue against absolutes as opposed to nuances.

the problems are:
it is disingenuous to change the meaning of someone’s comment by pouring obviously unintended meanings into them – then countering the argument no one made in the first place.

it serves to elevate the angst and anger as people try and point out the error… and tempers flare.

it also serves to foster needless tangential discussions.

so, for the sake of time, effort, peace, and accuracy… before responding in disgust or disbelief, please take a moment to discern that you have; a) accurately interpreted and quoted the source, and b) you are countering an argument someone actually made.

OK, so I’m not totally connected to the goings-on in the world, and am a bit extra-cranky this week.  Needless to say, I’m several days behind on the news, but apparently semi-retired Fox political commentator Brit Hume has gotten himself into a pickle:

In actuality, I thought this was pretty sage advice.  It’s not something I’m used to seeing on TV, which was why (at least to me) that it seemed a bit visually jarring.  I also remembered that Hume had cited Christian study as a reason he was leaving the news business back in 2008:

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

With that in mind, his advice seems even more natural.  I think it takes guts to talk about basic application of Christianity to your life in the public eye, and in the conversational manner used by Hume.  What has surprised me has been the hair-trigger response by some folks on the right and left at Hume’s commentary.  I’m not sure whether it was his honest assessment of forgiveness and Buddhism or his frank advice about Christianity that was most offensive to the masses.  Maybe the venue wasn’t the correct one, if his only intended audience was Tiger, but I when I relisten to the clip, I think it was purposely meant for the wider audience.

On another front, a friend of mine in the community posted this link to his FB page, which surprised me a little bit (not that he posted it, but that Coulter wrote it).  I’ve not read Coulter in a long time – not because I don’t agree with her politics (I generally do), but because I’m not really interested in hyperbolic political commentary from either end of the spectrum.  Still, I was pleasantly surprised, but I wonder if she, too, won’t be criticized since she’s a political commentator speaking on the subject of religious belief.

The most common complaints I’ve heard have been “wrong venue” (for Hume) and “wrong person” (for Coulter).  Unlike a number of examples I’ve seen of “monster shouting” on street corners, Hume’s comments are downright humble and mild.  Unlike a number of simplistic, milquetoast explanations of Christianity I’ve seen/heard from famous folks (particularly those on the political front), Coulter’s is actually decent, if you can get past the political jibes.

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don’t need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don’t need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you’ll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you’re getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that’s disputed.

[...]Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies — no doing what all the other kids do.

[...]With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.

It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.

It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.

And so I do not…