Right vs. Easy
Over the course of my regular blog readings, along with checking into some other places (like Lutherquest), I’ve made note of something that is both annoying and troubling.
It seems that in the ever-ongoing battle between that which is “right” and that which is “easy/possible/practical” a new dictum has taken hold. Rather than the proverbial “Road to Hell” being paved with “Good Intentions,” I would argue that a better, and more accurate, aphorism is this: The road to Hell is the path of least resistance.
What’s my point?
Well, I guess my point is this — we’ve become so inured to the many & varied humanistic/postmodernist “truths” roiling about our culture, that we’ve darned near completely lost sight of the acceptability (if not the outright necessity) of fighting for that which is right. Nope, we’ve been broken down to the point where we willingly accept that which is merely easy.
What I’ve noticed in my online reading of late is the recurring (usually exasperated and/or fatalistic) observation that reads something like this, “It would be so hard to change these bad/faulty/heterodox traditions, because they’ve become so entrenched! So all we can/should/will do is try to make the best of things…” This is nothing more than taking the path of least resistance, and doing that which is easy rather than that which is right, all in the guise of being “tolerant,” “inclusive,” and/or “loving.”
What it fails to take into account is that the bulk of the erring “traditions” & heteropraxis (e.g., priestitutes, church growth, usurpation of pastoral office duties by the laity, etc…) are of quite recent vintage (i.e., within the past 100 years or so). Congregational memories are, for all practical purposes, quite short. Within no more than 10 years, an aberrant practice like lay-readers can take root and become that which is defended as “the way we’ve always done things…” and that cannot be changed, lest folks be emotionally upset.
Inquiries and/or plans to root out the error, and return to the orthopraxis established by the Early Church & reclaimed by the Reformation, are met with accusatory cries and emotion-laden denouncements. Terms like “legalist,” “pharisee,” “uncaring,” & “unloving” are bandied about. And, quite unfortunately, that is often (usually?) enough to table any discussion, no matter how based in Scripture & Symbols the request for discussion/assessment were.
It’s bitterly ironic, that the agitators for heterodox change move so quickly & strongly to squash any discussion about the possibility of returning to orthodoxy/orthopraxis. And that they often are squashing *at the same time* they are agitating for further change/movement away from historic orthodoxy/orthropraxis… well, that makes the irony all the more bitter (and infuriating!).
If Spong were honest…
Recently, I’ve listened to the Issues, Etc. interview & follow-up analysis of John Shelby Spong (Check out the Issues, Etc. archives for May — specifically the 5th & 10th). Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop is well & truly a piece of work. It’s not often that I’m willing to unreservedly declare someone a heretic, but Spong is a heretic. That he calls himself a Christian is truly a testament to the depths that Satan will go to try and deceive us, not to mention the lengths to which we will go to try and rationalize/justify ourselves.
I mention Spong because I thought of him when I read a recent blog rerun by Dr. Al Mohler, entitled It Takes One To Know One. Dr. Mohler describes the path taken by former German Lutheran & liberal theologian Gerd Ludemann. Ludemann’s trajectory through liberal theology, and its denunciation of orthodox, historic Christianity, reads eerily similar to that of Spong’s, with one significant difference.
Ludemann has had the integrity to fess up to the fact that liberal theology is actually not Christian at its heart. Would that Spong had the same amount of integrity to abandon his ludicrous fantasy!
-ghp
Author vs. Reader
Check out a very interesting posting over at Stealth Bible: TNIV, entitled The Reader as Arbiter of Meaning.
This is a fascinating issue, over and above the ongoing debate over, and deconstruction/debunking of, the TNIV “paraphrase” (which is giving it a bit too much credit, if you ask me…). It speaks to the unquenchable need that man feels to be at the center of everything. 20th Century textual criticism saw the rise of the idea that the reader, not the author, was the ultimate/final arbiter of the meaning of any given text. It’s very postmodern, very relativistic, and very enticing. It’s also very wrong.
And never more so than when such frippery is applied to the Holy Writ. God informs the meaning of the Bible, and no amount of our wishing otherwise will change that! While we will not always understand that meaning, ultimately such understanding isn’t the point. Rather, faith in the simple, clearly stated promises contained in the Bible is what’s important!
-ghp
The Postmodern “Stealth Bible”
If you haven’t already heard about the newly released TNIV (Today’s New International Version) from Zondervan Publishing, you certainly will be hearing about it the coming days & weeks.
This “translation” is being touted by Zondervan as an update to the NIV. Now, I’m certainly no fan of the NIV — it has some serious flaws in how it views certain passages through a Reformed theological bias; however, that being said, it’s a paragon of theological integrity compared to the TNIV.
The first controversial point of the TNIV is the way it has openly embraced & used gender “neutral” language. In fact, some have said that rather than being “merely” gender neutral, the TNIV has engaged in a program of gender “appropriateness” — i.e., it’s a full-on PC interpretation (my word, which I think is more accurate than using “translation”) of the Bible.
A great deal of discussion & reporting has been done on this over at World Magazine, and a Worldmagblog has been dedicated to keeping up with the latest in the controversy, including an ongoing analysis of just how/where the TNIV has gone off the deep end. Check out Stealth Bible: TNIV — you’ll be glad you did.
Being forewarned with, & well-informed about, the facts is definitely being forearmed in this case, because there’s a massive marketing blitz surrounding this “translation” — Zondervan has taken the Bible postmodern, and is now attempting to take that mainstream.
God help us all…
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
