moderateBaptists.com

Handing out tracts

John D. Pierce — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:36:00 +0000

Baptist Press did a brief story on "a small group of Southern Baptist street evangelists" giving out tracts and witnessing among the Democratic National Convention attendees in Denver.

It stirred memories from my youth. Being a "soul-winner" was a consistent challenge from the pulpit and other places of church leadership. And using tracts was a common method for the more fervent witnesses.

Students from the fundamentalist Tennessee Temple Schools were often found fearlessly distributing gospel tracts at Eastgate Mall (and other places) around Chattanooga, Tenn. Wanting to demonstrate my own unwavering commitment, I picked up a few tracts from a rack in my Southern Baptist church and gave it a good but brief shot.

However, I never got comfortable with this approach to personal evangelism despite my strong desire to be fully committed to my faith.

As a teen, I often felt either uncomfortable doing confrontational evangelism with strangers ("If you were to die tonight...read this tract") or guilty for not being as bold as others.

It took a good while before reaching the conclusion that I am not going to give out tracts AND I am not going to feel guilty about that decision. But, also, I am not going to criticize those who do.

Passing on the faith is indeed a part of the Christian calling. Some find tract-distribution as their method of choice.

The style and content of gospel tracts vary from the simple to the insensitive. Some tracts offer the "simple plan of salvation" or what some might call a simplistic approach to the Christian faith.

Campus Crusade students have distributed the "Four Spiritual Laws" by the millions that provide a four-step approach to "accepting Christ." (One of my friends once noted that Jesus shared the "Two Spiritual Laws" of loving God with all your heart, mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.)

Some tracts are creative. One looks like a folded $20 bill that has been dropped, but then offers something much "more valuable" to the finder.

The most offensive tracts (to many) come from Chick Publications. Going beyond the simple Gospel message, the black-background tracts condemn the Roman Catholic Church as false and any Bible translations other than the KJV as "corrupted versions."

Jack Chick's infamous tracts have sold more than 700 million copies the company claims. The popular "It's Your Life" tract ("adapted for black audiences") shows a white angel carting off a chunky, naked black man toward final judgment and eternal torment.

That's not exactly the way most of us would frame the Good News of Jesus Christ. But most tracts — fortunately — take a more appropriate approach.

And for most people — surely including the Southern Baptists on the streets of Denver this week — their desire is nothing more than to be faithful witnesses to the Good News that has changed their lives. Who can argue with that?

Pronouncing the Divine Name - Part 3

Dr. Claude Mariottini — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:00:00 +0000

This is the third post on pronouncing the divine name. Read Part 1 here. Read part 2 here.

In his introduction to the article on YHWH in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, David Noel Freedman wrote (p. 5:500): “The correct pronunciation of the name was lost from Jewish tradition some time during the Middle Ages; late in the period of the Second Temple the name had come to be regarded as unspeakably holy and therefore unsuitable for use in public reading.”

The primary reason for this reluctance to pronounce the divine name is unknown. In the book of Deuteronomy, God’s name is called “this glorious and fearful name” (Deuteronomy 28:58). In Leviticus, the word “Hashem,” “the Name” stands for the Tetragrammaton (Leviticus 24:11). Probably it was the fear of profaning God’s name (Leviticus 22:2) that prompted Israel to restrict the use of the divine name.

Post-exilic books such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs do not use the Tetragrammaton. In the book of Daniel, a book that probably reflects the situation in the days of the Maccabees (2nd century B.C.), the name of God appears only in chapter 9.

The translators of the Septuagint followed the Jewish community’s tradition regarding the use of the divine name. The Septuagint translates the divine name as Kyrios, Lord. The writers of the New Testament followed Jewish practice and also used the word Kyrios to translate the divine name. A good example is seen in Joel 2:32:

MT: “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved.”

LXX: “And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved.”

NT: “For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

In the New Testament the name “Lord,” the same word used in the Septuagint to translate the divine name YHWH, becomes a title used to identify Jesus Christ.

Josephus, writing in the Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 A.D.) abstained from using the divine name. He wrote:

“Moses having now seen and heard these wonders that assured him of the truth of these promises of God, had no room left him to disbelieve them; he entreated him to grant him that power when he should be in Egypt; and besought him to vouchsafe him the knowledge of his own name; and, since he had heard and seen him, that he would also tell him his name, that when he offered sacrifice he might invoke him by such his name in his oblations. Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more” (Ant. 2, 12, 4).

William Whiston, the translator of Antiquities added a note to Josephus’s statement. He wrote (p. 80) that the fear of pronouncing “the name with four letters, which of late we have been used falsely to pronounce Jehovah . . . is never, I think, heard of, till this passage of Josephus.” Josephus was also unwilling to write down the words of the Ten Commandments. Josephus wrote: “And they all heard a voice that came to all of them from above, insomuch that no one of these words escaped them, which Moses wrote on two tables; which it is not lawful for us to set down directly” (Ant. 3,5,4). According to Whiston, the fear to pronounce God’s name and the reluctance to write down the words of the Decalogue were taught to Josephus by the Pharisees.

The prohibition concerning the pronunciation of the divine name also appears in the Talmud. For instance, in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 90a is written:

All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it is written, ‘thy people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified’ but the following have no portion therein: he who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros [an adherent of the Epicurean philosophy]. R. Akiba added: one who reads uncanonical books. Also one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, I will bring none of these diseases upon thee which I brought upon the Egyptians: ‘for I am the Lord that healeth thee.’ Abba Saul says: also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelt.

The fear of pronouncing the divine name may come from a possible misunderstanding of the meaning of the word ??? (naqab) in Leviticus 24:16. The New Revised Standard Version translates Leviticus 24:15-16 as follows: [15] And speak to the people of Israel, saying: Anyone who curses God shall bear the sin. [16] One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death.”

The Septuagint, however, has a different understanding of the word. The Septuagint translates Leviticus 24:16 as follows: “And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death.” The Jewish Publication Society’s (TNK) translation of this verse follows the Septuagint: “[15] And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt; [16] if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death.”

The text in which this legislation appears relates the story of a man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian. This man was fighting with another man and in the process he blasphemed the name of God in a curse (Leviticus 24:10-16).

The NRSV translates Leviticus 24:11 as follows: “The Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name in a curse.”

The TNK translates Leviticus 24:11 as follows: “The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy.”

Both translations render naqab as “blasphemy.” However, in Leviticus 26:16, the TNK translates the word naqab differently from the NRSV.

NRSV: “ One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death.”

TNK: “if he also pronounces the name LORD, he shall be put to death.”

So, the issue in question is: does the word naqab mean “to blaspheme” or “to pronounce”? I believe that the proper interpretation of this text determines whether the divine name can be pronounced. According to J. Scharbert, the root naqab appears in most Semitic languages and it means “pierce, make a hole.” The word also appears in Akkadian with the meaning of “deflower.” However, the word never appears with the meaning “to pronounce.” Scharbet wrote (p. 552):

In Lev. 24:11,15f. naqab takes on a different nuance in conjunction with the name of Yahweh. Because the verb parallels the piel of qll, it is usually translated “blaspheme (the name of Yahweh).” The different legal consequences (“bear the sin” in the sense of “have to live with the curse conjured up by the act” vs. ‘be put to death"’ show that nqb denotes a more serious offense than qillel. “Cursing” refers to careless derogatory speech concerning God; “blaspheming” refers to deliberate slanderous speech concerning Yahweh, with explicit emphasis on Yahweh’s name. It is unlikely that this passage already interprets the prohibition against wrongful use of Yahweh’s name (Ex. 20:7; Dt. 5:11) as an absolute prohibition against any use whatever of the name. The text refers rather to a negative “branding” of the name of Yahweh.

God said: “I am YHWH, this is my name” (Isaiah 42:8). God also said: “This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15). Giving his name to Moses and to all Israel was an act of divine grace which demonstrated how serious God was in his desire to establish a personal relationship with his people. As Fretheim wrote in his commentary on Exodus:

Giving the name entails a certain kind of relationship; it opens up the possibility of, indeed admits a desire for, a certain intimacy in relationship. A relationship without a name inevitably means some distance; naming the name is necessary for closeness. Naming makes true encounter and communication possible. Naming entails availability. By giving the name, God becomes accessible to people. God and people can now meet one another and there can be address on the part of both parties.

So, I do not believe there is a biblical admonition against pronouncing God’s personal name. But, should Christians pronounce God’s name? Since God revealed his name, a name by which he wants to be remembered from generation to generation, I believe Christians should be free to use God’s personal name with respect and reverence. However, since we do not know how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton, the use of “Yahweh” may suffice. The name “Jehovah” should be avoided because such a name does not exist. However, people will continue to use it in traditional hymns; I prefer not to use it.

I seldom use God’s name in preaching; in this I follow the biblical tradition and use either “Lord” or “God.” I generally use ‘Yahweh” or “YHWH” when writing or teaching. In using the divine name, however, I remember the principle established by the Apostle Paul. Since my Jewish brothers and sisters may be offended by the use of the divine name, I do not use God’s name in their presence for I do not want to offend them.

REFERENCES;

Freedman, David N. “Yhwh.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vo. 5. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Fretheim, Terence. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991

Scharbert, J. “Naqab.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vo. 9. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998

Whiston, William. The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, n.d.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Divine Name, Leviticus 24, Lord, Yahweh, YHWH

var addthis_pub = 'claude mariottini';

Experts Including BJC’s Walker Advise Presidential Candidates on Using Faith

Blog from the Capital — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:18:02 +0000

Over at the Washington Post's On Faith site, panelists including the BJC's Brent Walker are answering the challenge: Advise John McCain and Barack Obama on the role religion should play in their presidential campaigns. There are lots of interesting responses....

DNC night 3–Historical

Streak — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:12:00 +0000

And, as my best friends will attest to, I am in a pissed off mood. Not from the convention. Hell, I thought the Democrats actually did great tonight. No, I was pissy because I tuned into some conversations that were just bashing everyone from Clinton to Kerry.

Fine.

I really don't care what others think. I watched Bill Clinton give an amazing speech. One of the best I have seen. He actually raised the issue of torture, and called on us again to be better. But in between him and Joe Biden (who I also thought was great) was an amazingly fiery speech by John Kerry, (only to hear people grousing about him being boring). I bet you 100 dollars, Kerry had to rush his speech because Clinton went over time, but he still turned in one of the highlights of the convention. He also raised torture--dared to say that America doesn't torture (obviously a commie pinko wimp) and called the Swiftboaters what they were--smear merchants. He then pointed out the obvious, that the Republicans don't own the American flag--something that still grates with me personally.

And then, Barack Obama came out. Forget all the bullshit conventioneering. Forget the manufactured nature of this event (and next week's in St. Paul). Forget the pageantry.

The Democrats officially nominated an African American for President of the United States. Historical. Something many of us thought we would never see.

History.

Republicans offer us Swiftboating and smear for this campaign. I prefer history. And even if we lose this campaign, I will be proud to stand with history.

A Different Kind of Witness

Kaylor — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:01:00 +0000

With the Democratic National Convention going on this week, many protesters have turned up outside in hopes of attracting the attention of all the media that is there. This is a normal sight at events that have so many people and media present. Among those there are street preachers who are yelling scriptures at people passing by. However, some Southern Baptists took a radically different approach and are serving the police, first responders, and others. These volunteers are giving out thousands of free meals and drinks. Jim Shaddix, pastor of Riverside Baptist Church in downtown Denver, explained:

We wanted to find a way to be a part of this event in a non-political way. ... This grew to something far beyond what we ever envisioned it would be.

Amen! Baptists are proving that they are much better at serving people in a Christlike manner than they are with political activities. One photo the Baptist Press provided has the signs of some of the street preachers in the corner behind the police. It creates an stark contrast: some are there causing more work for the police and first responders, while others are there serving the police and first responders. My guess is the latter will have a much larger impact in sharing the Gospel with those present.

A must read: ‘The New Conspirators’ by Tom Sine

Chuck Warnock — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:40:08 +0000

Tom Sine’s latest book, The New Conspirators, celebrates the increasing diversity in the church. Sine’s book continues the theme of his classic book, The Mustard Seed Conspiracy, published in 1981. Sine was a ‘red-letter Christian’ before the official group existed, and in this hopeful volume he gives us examples across the spectrum of the 21st century church.

Divided into five “conversations” Sine takes his readers on a tour of real places where real people are living out the gospel as they understand it in communities and congregations around the world. In Conversation One, Sine introduces the unfamiliar to the four streams of the postmodern church — emerging, missional, mosaic, and monastic. Sine celebrates the gifts each brings to the body of Christ, giving an even-handed, generous perspective on each.

In Conversation Two, we are reminded of our global culture from massive consumerism to militant terrorism. This is the world in which we all live, and Sine reminds us that there are those who covet our American materialism, and those who despise it. But, despite the negatives of globalization, Sine sees positive things in our shrinking planet, such as the connection young people around the world are making with each other, transcending local cultures.

In Conversation Three, we are encouraged to take the future of God seriously. Sine isn’t talking about “going to heaven when you die” either. After several illustrations of kingdom thinking and acting, Sine weaves a lyrical scene, his take on Isaiah 25 and Revelation 21, where “God’s presence is palpable and we sense his generous welcome.”

Conversation Four reminds readers to take “turbulent times seriously.” Sine pulls takes us below decks in his version of humanity’s “Ship of Fools” examining the stark contrasts between the fabulously rich, the increasingly shrinking middle-class, and the world’s abject poor.

In Conversation Five, we are encouraged to “take our imaginations seriously.” Sine paints new pictures of “whole-life” stewardship, community, and mission celebrating those on the entrepreneurial edge. He states, “we need musicians, poets and artists to create new forms of worship, in which we celebrate coming home as a great resurrected community to a world where the broken are made whole, justice comes for the poor and shalom to the nations.”

If you want a tour of where church is headed in the 21st century, read ‘The New Conspirators.’ If you despair of the future of the church, let Tom Sine fill you with the same joy he shares over the growth of these mustard seeds of the kingdom. If you’re looking for something to give fresh direction to your own life, and form it in new ways, grab a copy of Sine’s book and join ‘The New Conspirators’ yourself. As Shane Claiborne says, “This book is a gift to the church, and to the world.”

“fun,” “fun,” “fun”

texasinafrica — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:40:00 +0000

Sure signs you are in nerd central:

1. There's a totebag. And that totebag is brought to you by CSPAN:
2. The debate over only holding the conference in states that recognize equal rights for gay couples continues. Apparently we should only confer in Massachusetts, Vermont, and California. I swear, if one more email about this non-issue lands in my inbox...

3. Walking down Boylston Street means that one can't help but overhear heated conversations about the collective action dilemma and fragmentation.

At least there are friends to help us through...

“fun,” “fun,” “fun”

texasinafrica — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:40:00 +0000

rock on!

texasinafrica — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:30:00 +0000

I think we can all agree that this is a gift straight from heaven. And it's going to rock our Sunday School class Christmas party even more than last year's karaoke machine episode did (Those memories of "Butterfly Kisses" just won't go away, no matter how hard I try to forget.). I call dibs on Petra!

(Thanks to David for the tip!)

rock on!

texasinafrica — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:30:00 +0000

Missions Photo Contest: Team Roping

ashli — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:32:21 +0000

BSCC 6 Team Roping

Originally uploaded by bootsnsaddle

Boots-N-Saddle Cowboy Church Arena Grand Opening-Team Roping.
Arena Events are a way to share God’s word with the Western Hertiage individual. April 2008

To see the entire submission group to this point, you may click this link: http://www.flickr.com/groups/missionsphotocontest/pool/show/.

We’d love to have you submit some photos from your involvement in missions over the last year. Deadline is September 1. Contest details are here: http://www.bgct.org/texasbaptists/Page.aspx?pid=5092.

The Church Has Many Faces

Ircel — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:07:00 +0000

I visited today with a friend who is a missionary in Western Europe. His task is to share the Gospel in an area that is post-Christian. We may want to unpack that term a bit. For centuries, Europe was part of Christendom—an institutionalized form of Christianity characterized by established or state churches (with a few dissenting groups thrown in to keep it interesting). My friend points out that he tries to differentiate among the terms Christendom, Christianity, and being a follower of Christ. Many people with whom he works look upon Christianity as a failed experiment—“Been there, done that”—when what has really failed is the institution of Christendom. His role is to bring people to Christ, not Christianity.

In order to do this, he and his team are taking some unique approaches to “doing church.” Although his context is different from that of my friends in Southeast Asia who are developing an indigenous church in a country that has never been Christian, the tasks are similar—establishing culturally appropriate faith communities that will reach and nurture believers.

This basically is the “missional church” concept. If we look at what this team in doing in Western Europe and my friends are doing in Southeast Asia, we realize that few churches in North America have really embraced what it means to be a missional church. Developing a strategic plan and adopting “missions” activities does not mean that we are engaging our culture with the message of the Kingdom of God. In fact, most of our churches do not even take their context seriously when it comes to being the people of God in their setting.

Perhaps we need to have the kind of experience that Bishop Leslie Newbigin had when he returned from India and discovered that “Christian” Great Britain was a mission field. That would change our thinking significantly.

Two Discussions of Inerrancy

D. P. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:08:00 +0000

Tony Cartledge notes that Southern Baptist laypeople are not as gung-ho about inerrancy as their pastors are. I’m not convinced, however, that the phrase “totally accurate in all that it teaches” is strictly equivalent to the word “inerrant.” Does the Bible “teach,” for example, that the earth is covered with a dome of water and [...]

Baptists in Europe

Jim — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:34:00 +0000

a century

texasinafrica — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:09:00 +0000

Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lyndon Baines Johnson. He was quite a politician, who wielded power in the Senate like few others have. And he probably won an election or two under, shall we say, somewhat questionable circumstances. (My favorite is what happened in LBJ's 1948 Senate race against then-Governor Coke Stevenson, in which 200 dead people conveniently voted in alphabetical order, giving LBJ an 87-vote margin that won him the statewide race.) He kept the Vietnam War going when it was already evident that the mission there was a disaster, and his Great Society programs largely failed.

But despite his shortcomings, LBJ's singular most important achievement is one that will stand forever. Using the Kennedy assasination as an argument for creating a legacy for the late president, LBJ channeled the passions of the Civil Rights movement into legislation that finally gave African-Americans and other racial minorities equal political and citizenship rights in our country. It cost the Democratic party the support of the South, and the effects of that rift still affect our politics today. His civil rights achievements are worth honoring.

Thieves in High Places

Dr. Bruce Prescott — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:42:00 +0000

The Economic Policy Institute has published information revealing the extent to which middle class working families have lost economic ground since the turn of the millenium.

When adjusted for inflation, median salaries have fallen by $2,000, while the average output per hour has increased by 18%. And these figures don't include the skyrocketing inflation numbers for 2008. When 2008 is added on, the line on the chart will look like it has fallen off a cliff.

If trickle down economics makes any sense (and I'm not sure that it does), it only makes sense when the people in charge are honest and conscientious. When crooks and thieves are in charge, the working classes get robbed.

It’s Going to Be a Long Weekend

howie — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:34:56 +0000

More here.

First-century Judaism: The Least You Need to Know

D. P. — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:31:04 +0000

Class was rudely interrupted by tornado sirens yesterday, so I didn’t get to finish talking about Judaism in the first century. Here is a nutshell version of what I would have said. 1. Four sects. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, there were four “philosophies” of Judaism. Most Jews in the time of Jesus would not have [...]

Revamping This Weblog

Dr. Bruce Prescott — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:25:00 +0000

It's obvious that I've reformatted this weblog and have given it a different look and feel. I'm also going to make some additions to the content that I put on it.

I've decided to add a little organization to assure a more consistent flow of reflective content. I'll continue to post the usual notes and comments on the news and current events of the day. Items of interest to Baptists will be a constant staple. In addition, I'm going to schedule days to write brief notes on research that I've done and am doing on the following issues:

On Mondays, I'll try to post blogs on political philosophy and/or ethical issues. Ethical issues have always been of interest to me, but had no interest in political philosophy until after 9-11. Trying to decipher the ideology prompting this administration to use that tragedy to revoke the most basic civil and human rights, to launch an never-ending "war against terror," and to initiate an unprovoked war to acquire control over Iraqi oil has forced me, almost against my will, to begin studying political philosophy. As time and schedule permit, I'll share bits and pieces of what I've learned and am learning about the philosophy and practice of politics on Mondays.

On Tuesdays, I'll try to post blogs on the philosophy and theology of love. This has been the chief theological interest of my entire life. My doctoral dissertation is on the "symbolism of love." After slogging through the slippery, sometimes slimy world of political thought and ideology on Mondays, I'm going to need to spend a day focused on the highest and most universal values.

On Wednesdays, I'll try to post blogs on religious liberty. More than anything else, the Baptist heritage regarding "soul liberty," "liberty of conscience" and religious liberty is what makes me proud to distinguish myself from the traditions of other Christians and unashamed to be a Baptist. I am ashamed of how poorly most contemporary Baptists understand and uphold this component of our tradition.

On Thursdays, I'll try to post blogs about the meaning and significance of conscience. My interest in conscience began twelve years ago when Dr. Curtis Freeman, (then professor at Houston Baptist University, now at Duke University) was trying to convince me to sign the "Baptist Manifesto." I came to the conclusion that Freeman and the other signers of that Manifesto had a defective understanding of conscience. Off and on, I've been studying the literature about conscience ever since. I'll be sharing bits and pieces of what I've discovered in this research.

On Fridays, I'll try to post brief blogs about philosophical theology and/or hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It began with the desire to more completely understand scriptures. Many contemporary philosophers have come to realize that processes of interpretation play a key role in every area of human understanding. I'll share brief insights that may be of value to ministers and teachers from these often technical discussions.

As has always been the case, my blogging is done as time and schedule permit.

year 26

texasinafrica — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:47:00 +0000

Today is officially the first day of school. It's kindof irrelevant for me since I'm teaching Tuesday/Thursday classes this semester, and since I'm missing the first day of that due to a professional conference.

But today is still significant because, Lord willing and the creek don't rise, this is my last first day of school. (As a student, anyway.) For those who are counting, this makes my 26th consecutive year of being educated, what with 13 years of public education, 4 of college, 2 of a master's degree, and 7 of PhD work. No wonder I'm so tired. :)

Nancy Drew

Jeff the Baptist — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:12:00 +0000

We netflixed the 2007 movie and watched it on Monday. It's not bad. Not amazing, but perfectly ok especially for a rental. It's a kids movie (or perhaps a tweens movie) and you need to keep that mind when you're watching it. There is action, but nobody really gets hurt. Everything and everyone is clean. The villains are of the frequently bumbling sort. The plot is unfortunately quite

sitting in

tripp — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:39:31 +0000

That will be the task of our next president...to give voice to the vision of the American people.There is a meeting at church this evening. It's the beginning of our usual budget conversation. Flex time is my friend, so I am hanging out at home this morning watching a little MSNBC coverage of the DNC. It's interesting stuff. Yes, talking heads are only so engaging, but I'm interested in this election like I have not been for a couple iterations now. The talking heads are evaluating Hillary's speech right now. Did it do what they needed it to do? Of course, it is impossible to say this soon after it was delivered. Some of her supporters will never vote for Obama. It's that simple. Right now they are talking about Obama's age. He's older than JFK was when he ran. He lacks "gravitas," however, and this is what is troubling the pundits. He's too much of a rock star. Interestingly, I think the youthfulness cuts both ways. Everything in this country is marketed to either youth or people who wish they were still youthful...or who are older and think of themselves as youthful. So, Obama resonates with the prevailing culture. Youthfulness and vigor wins. The "new" excites. So, Obama lacks gravitas. Okay. McCain lacks freshness. He can say "maverick" all he wants. But it doesn't necessarily compete with Obama's youthfulness or "celebrity." They'll both have to focus on the positive aspects to the characteristics that cut both ways. There's no way for Obama to spontaneously have 20 years of federal legislative experience. There is no way McCain can take off 20 years and seem more hip. They simply have to present who they are...warts and all...and see what happens. Now, if only the talking heads would let this stuff go and focus on the meat of the race... No matter what we think of these two men (age, experience, maverick-ness/hood, celebrity) they are our candidates for the highest political office in the country. They will have that authority and responsibility and will need our support and reasonable challenges. Their success depends on our involvement and support. The comment I heard in Hillary's speech that resonated with me last night was about W's failure to galvanize the American people. I agree with the statement. He was unable to do that. It's one thing to make unpopular and still correct choices. Hard choices come with the presidential territory. It's another thing to push people where they will not or cannot go...and make mistakes in reading the will of the American people. I think that's been W's failure. He did not catch the people's vision. Instead he foisted his own vision upon us. To be fair, any party, any president can make that mistake. Carter certainly did. Obama and McCain are at risk of making the same mistake. It's the geography of the office. Vision matters. And a healthy vision comes from the grass roots up...mediated by the facts understood by those "in the know" not the other way around. MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech worked because his dream was already the dream of those around him. He did not hand it to them. He articulated what they already had. That will be the task of our next president...to give voice to the vision of the American people....

TBM going to Republic of Georgia

John — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:32:25 +0000

DALLAS – A seven-person Texas Baptist Men team is headed to the Republic of Georgia to feed people affected by the fighting there.

The team will help set up a kitchen and feed people in Gori, Georgia. Russian troops have pulled back to a position six miles outside Gori and continue to control access to Georgia’s key port at Poti, according to the AFP news service. Russians also are manning positions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two provinces that have sought independence from Georgia. The Russians also have left “peacekeepers” in a buffer zone they created inside Georgia.

To support this effort, send checks designated “disaster relief” to Texas Baptist Men at 5351 Catron, Dallas 75227.

With additional reporting by Mark Kelly, assistant editor for Baptist Press.

About Preaching

Michael Ruffin — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:33:00 +0000

Ideally, preaching will bring the message of one part of the Bible home to the hearer in a vivid, creative way that causes a response of faith, love, and hope in the hearer. The ideal sermon will bring the hearer a new insight into the life situation of the congregation and will proclaim the good news of God's grace in Jesus. But preaching often has a bad reputation, sometimes well deserved.

What is the Most Religiously Diverse Community in America?

Blog from the Capital — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:27:06 +0000

Flushing, NY. An openness to immigration and laws protecting religious freedom helped create the conditions for religious tolerance in the United States, says an expert on immigration, religion and urban issues in America who has researched a neighborhood in New...

The President Asks Questions

Ken Hall — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:12:20 +0000

It's late August and I'm excited. Yes, partly because Texas hunting season is less than a week away. And, yes, partly because football season is here and between high school, collegiate and professional football, there's always a good game available on the tube or in the stands.

But it's also a presidential election year and despite the merciless attack ads we've been subjected to and will be for the next two months, I love to watch the American political process at work. Observing the party process for winnowing a nominee is fun enough, but then you get to see (and everyone should participate in) the national election process. Part of that tradition is the pre-party convention discovery phase, as multiple candidates field questions from voters and they debate among themselves. Each of these Americans contending for nation's highest office go through the same routine it seems: voters ask questions, and candidates answer.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't a presidential candidate ask questions of the American people? A lot of times the answer is, sadly, no. Each candidate is typically prepped by his or her political image team to answer questions from a stock set of replies triggered by certain questions. It makes sense: people want a candidate with decisive answers to occupy the White House. It would be a nice change of pace, though, if we substituted a few debates with a few "presidential question sessions," where the prospective national head of state got to know his constituency by asking them what they want, what they dream, who they are.

It's in this spirit that I'm going to start for the next few weeks, a series of questions from the President of Buckner. I'll be asking questions of our staff in the open forum of this blog. And I'll be asking them to give straight answers about their hearts and minds that in turn will give all of us a better snapshot of Buckner. Questions like,

What drew you to Buckner?
What is your passion for the work you do?
What is unique about Buckner?
What direction do you see Buckner going?

We have fantastic people who give from their lives daily so that others will thrive. It's time we heard from some of them. and by me asking questions, you'll get some really good answers about not only what Buckner does, but who Buckner is.

DNC thoughts

Streak — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:30:00 +0000

We watched Hillary's speech last night, and I thought she did a great job. Though I have few problems with her policies, I am not a fan. The way she played the primary game drove me crazy, and Bill did not handle himself well.

But last night, she turned in a great speech. It has been a long times since I actually got into one. When she quoted Harriet Tubman? Damn. That was something.

But her best line of the speech, and the one that the Obama people have to like the most was this one:

Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

Voting for McCain will do nothing to help those issues, and that was a masterful way to make that point.

Thinking back to the primary, I remember wondering about Hillary's electability. That was my big concern about her. I never doubted that she could govern, but I thought that the best way to raise money for the right was to use her name. Irrational as it often seems, people on the right just hate her. When I thought she was going to be the nominee, I suggested that was a little overblown--that the right would go after who ever we put up. In retrospect, of course, that is clearly true. McCain, after swearing off Swift-Boating style, now endorses it. They will do anything to make Obama a monster.

And that is the rather interesting thing, isn't it? After forcing us over the last 40 years to believe that Republicans believe in "family values" we have this situation--where a divorced and admitted womanizer who married into his money is running against a guy who grew up in a one parent household and worked his way up the ladder, forming what certainly appears to be a very healthy family along the way. Hard work, family values, commitment, etc., right?

Several observers noted that the Obama family presented up there Monday night, and through this campaign, has been far more traditional, and far more conservative, and far more familial, than anything the Republicans have tried to force down our throats.

Some of my real frustration of late comes from this lack of basic honesty and even decency in our political discourse. Oppositional responses are required, even if they are dishonest and clearly wrong--what Jon Stewart might call the "Crossfire effect." Calling something as a lie--as when the SwiftBoaters first disparaged John Kerry's service in VN--seems out of the Media's playbook. They have to address how it "played" politically. That made this Juan Williams reaction to Michelle Obama particularly refreshing. Calling it what it was.

Contrast that to those crickets you hear when you turn to the religious right--the self-proclaimed defenders of the family. Any of them standing up and applauding the Obama's work ethic, or approach to family, or, gasp, "family values?" Nope. Those are the same crickets you hear when you turn to them for moral outrage on torture.

No, we are forced to choose between Obama as "messiah" or Obama as "monster." Can't just see him as a great example of the American story. A great example of the American Dream, dare I say. Sullivan notes the complete disconnect between the rhetoric of the right regarding work and effort and reward and family, and how they address their own candidates:

"Mitt Romney is a bad thug, which is why he'd be a fatal choice for McCain. And so it was rather bizarre to hear him say that John McCain deserves all his houses/mansions/compounds because of the 'hard work' of McCain and his wife. McCain, to my knowledge, has never had a private sector job - unless you count working for his father-in-law - and his wife is a largely absentee heiress to her father's beer fortune. They inherited their fabulous life-style, and did nothing to earn it, unlike Mitt. For good measure, Romney, McCain and Bush were all products of the affirmative action called rich-and/or-powerful daddy. Obama did it all with no father and no inheritance. But he's the elitist. Their chutzpah is enough to drive you up the wall."

How dare he? No inheritance AND black? And still successful? Nope. He has to be a monster who kills live babies and secretly loves Bin Laden. When John Kerry married Theresa Heinz, he was a gold digging liberal. McCain, on the other hand, has received permission to cheat on his first wife because of his POW status.

I have said this before, but it merits repeating. I don't ever want to be lectured on moral values by anyone who has stood with these people. Just save it. And stop sending on those emails that whisper that Obama "might be a muslim."

Sigh.

SBC pastors, people on different pages

Tony W. Cartledge — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:49:00 +0000

The "battle for the Bible" may be over among Southern Baptist pastors, but people in the pews are less likely to pledge allegiance to inerrancy.

Responses to a survey by the research arm of LifeWay Christian Resources, taken this spring, showed that 100 percent of the 778 Southern Baptist pastors surveyed strongly agreed with the statement "I believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture." That's not surprising -- but a full 97 percent also strongly agreed with the sharper statement "I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture." Two percent "somewhat agreed," and zero percent disagreed.

In contrast, a 2007 survey of 2500 laypersons who attend a Protestant church at least once a month showed less belief in a perfect Bible. Respondents were asked if they agreed with the statement "the Bible is the written Word of God and is totally accurate in all that it teaches," a more elaborate way of saying "inerrant." Sixty-nine percent of the 260 who attended SBC churches strongly agreed, and another 11 percent "somewhat agreed," according to Brad Waggoner, a LifeWay executive who plans to publish a book based on the survey information.

While a clear majority of Protestant church-goers affirmed biblical perfection, their confidence falls well short of the surveyed pastors' near-unanimous devotion to inerrancy. LifeWay president Thom Rainer interpreted the results as a warning signal that the SBC's "battle for the Bible" is not yet over. In an interview with Baptist Press, he said "Yes, we have settled the issue of the authority of Scripture in our confession. That battle is over and done. However, I believe that the battle for the authority and sufficiency of God’s word is never really done. It is as old as the Garden of Eden and will continue until Jesus comes back. As we can see, Southern Baptists pastors are overwhelmingly inerrantists – but they are also discerning enough to know that we must always be on guard against compromise and error."

Maybe it's the laypeople who are the more discerning. Maybe they'd rather learn from the Bible than fight over it. Many of them know idolatry when they see it, and they refuse to attribute the divine quality of perfection to anything they can hold in their hand. Many, no doubt, have read the Bible with a careful eye, and have seen enough scriptural inconsistencies to know that the word "inerrant" can't really be applied to the Bible unless the word is saddled with so many exceptions that it becomes meaningless. They know it's quite possible to trust the Bible as a source of inspiration and instruction without putting it on the pedestal of perfection.

The discrepancy among Southern Baptists is not as great, but a disconnect between Catholic laypersons and the teachings of Rome strikes me as similar. In one notable example, Pope Benedict XVI has reaffirmed a church teaching that birth control shows disobedience to God and should not be practiced -- but a 2005 survey (referenced in this Newsweek article) showed that 75 percent of Catholics don't buy it.

Like priests who hold forth illogical doctrines that are routinely ignored, those who control today's SBC may have persuaded pastors to profess inerrancy, only to discover that capturing the minds of their members is another thing entirely.

Pronouncing the Divine Name - Part 2

Dr. Claude Mariottini — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:36:00 +0000

In my last post (part 1 here), I discussed what I perceived to be the purpose of Liturgiam authenticam: a return of the Catholic Church to its historical traditions.

One aspect of this desire to remain faithful to traditional Catholic faith and practice is the church’s use of the divine name as it appears in the Nova Vulgate Editio. The directive to translate the Tetragrammaton YHWH by a word equivalent to the Latin Dominus and the Greek Kyrios reflects the desire to maintain the ancient traditions of the church.

The revelation of the divine name to Moses on Mount Sinai reflects God’s desire to enter into a special relationship with Israel. The holy and sovereign God, the creator of the universe, in an act of sheer grace, wanted to enter the history of a nation and deal with a people who would be entrusted to carry out his will in the world.

In order to establish this relationship, God wanted to make himself known to Israel and this revelation of himself to the people came through Moses. Thus, on Mount Sinai God appeared to Moses and commissioned him to return to Egypt and bring the people out of their oppression.

Until the time of Moses, the people of Israel and the chosen leaders of the people did not know the name of God. In the past, God had appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, God Almighty (Exodus 6:3). This fact is attested in God’s words to Abraham: “When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, “I am El Shaddai; walk before me, and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1).

In his encounter with the God of the ancestors, the identity of the God who was sending him back to Egypt became an item of concern to Moses. Moses said to God: “If I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your ancestors has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3:13).

Moses was aware that the people of Israel would be reluctant to follow an unknown God. Thus, the revelation of the divine name would establish a lasting relationship between God and Israel: Israel would be God’s people and God would be Israel’s God.

So, in response to Moses’ request, God said to Moses: “I AM WHO I AM.” Then God commanded Moses: “Thus you shall say to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14).

In addition, God identified himself with the God of the ancestors. God said to Moses: “Say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers-- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-- has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15).

The origin, meaning, and theological significance of God’s name, YHWH, has produced a vast amount of literature but no definite consensus has been reached by scholars. The name YHWH appears more than 6,700 times in the Hebrew Bible (according to Charles Halton, the name appears 6,828 times). The name appears in every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. The fact that the God of Israel had a name implies that Israel recognized that its God was a personal being who wished to be known by his people and who desired to distinguish himself from the gods of the other nations.

When the Masoretes added vowels to the consonantal text circa the 10th century A.D., they added the vowels of Adonai to the Tetragrammaton to indicate that the name Adonai should be pronounced instead of YHWH. In 1518, Petrus Galatinus, the confessor of Pope Leo X, proposed that the divine name should be transliterated as Jehovah and this hybrid name became popular in religious writings. The name “Jehovah” appears in the King James Version in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, and Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. The name also appears in three other passages where it is combined with other elements (see Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24). The name Jehovah is used in the American Standard Version of 1901 to translate the divine name. However, Jehovah should not be used in theological writing nor in the liturgy because Jehovah is not the name of God.

The divine name appears in the Hebrew Bible in abbreviated form in hundreds of names of individuals such as Jeremiah, Abijah, Jehonathan, Jehoshaphat, and many others. The name of God also appears to designate holy places:

“And Abraham called the name of the place, ‘YHWH Will Provide’” (Genesis 22:14).

“And Moses built an altar and named it, ‘YHWH Is My Banner’” (Exodus 17:15).

“So Gideon built an altar to YHWH and called it ‘YHWH Is Peace’” (Judges 6:24).

“Jerusalem will be called ‘YHWH Our Righteousness’” (Jeremiah 33:16).

The name YHWH appears in the Mesha Stele (9th century B.C.E.), in an ostracon discovered at Kuntilet ‘Ajrud (8th century B.C.E.), in the Arad Letters (6th century B.C.E.), in the Lachish Letters(6th century B.C.E.). The name also appears in Syria and in Egypt.

The divine name YHWH was also used in the liturgy of Israel. In a text that reveals the nature of the God of Israel, the divine name appears twice: “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7).

The divine name was used in prayer by people everywhere: “Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of YHWH” (Genesis 4:26). The name of God was invoked at the time of worship: “I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of YHWH” (Psalm 116:17). Foreigners will pray to YHWH: “Then will I purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of YHWH and serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Zephaniah 3:9). The remnant of Israel will also call on God’s name: “This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘YHWH is our God’” (Zechariah 13:9).

I argue that it was in the liturgy of Israel that the name of God was celebrated. When the people came to the temple they would say: “Oh, magnify YHWH with me, and let us exalt his name together!” (Psalm 34:3). In worship, the people proclaimed: “YHWH is king” (Psalm 93:1). In times of need the people would cry: “Arise, O YHWH! Save me” (Psalm 3:7). When the people were asked at the time of worship: “Who is the King of glory?” They would respond: “YHWH, strong and mighty, YHWH, mighty in battle” (Psalm 24:8).

So, the name of God was pronounced by the people of Israel in worship, prayer, and celebration because YHWH was the name of their God. God said: “I am YHWH, this is my name” (Isaiah 42:8).

When Moses descended Mount Sinai and returned to Egypt and the people asked him the name of the God who had appeared to him, Moses did not say: “His name is Adonai.” Moses could not say that Adonai appeared to him because Adonai was not the name of the God who appeared to him. His name was YHWH and to identify the God who sent him back to Egypt, Moses had to pronounce the divine name.

During the Second Temple period, the name of God was considered too holy to be pronounced in public and eventually, it was not even pronounced in the temple. For this reason, the correct pronunciation of God’s name was lost and forgotten.

This reluctance to pronounce God’s name is contrary to God’s will as expressed by God himself to Moses on Mount Sinai. When God revealed his name to Moses, God said: “Say to the Israelites, ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers-- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-- has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15).

This is God’s will concerning his name: that his name be remembered forever. God said to Moses: “This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.” God wanted to be remembered by his name from generation to generation. But today, no one knows how to pronounce God’s name. It is sad that the intimacy that God desired to have with his people when he revealed his name cannot be accomplished in its fulness. The revelation of the name began that relationship, but the name of God has been forgotten. Now, our relationship is with a God whose name is not known and if we follow the directives of Liturgiam authenticam, a God whose name cannot be pronounced.

In my next post I will discuss one of the reasons the name of God cannot be pronounced and whether Christians should pronounce God’s name.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Adonai, Yahweh, YHWH, Tetragrammaton

var addthis_pub = 'claude mariottini';

let the madness begin

texasinafrica — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:14:00 +0000

Today is a day I've been anticipating/dreading for quite some time now: the unofficial kick-off of my field's academic job market. I fly to Boston for our big professional conference, at which there will be much schmoozing, some interviewing, and lots of nonsense presented in the form of academic discourse.

Since most Texas in Africa readers are lucky enough not to work in this field, and since this thing we call The Market is about to take over my life, I figured I should probably explain a little about what you'll be reading about for the next three to nine months. (If you keep reading, that is, which I completely wouldn't blame you if you stopped...)

Here's the main thing to remember: academia does not work like the real world. We use an archaic, unfair, semi-rigged system to place people. It's ridiculous and inefficient, but that's the way it works and there's no point in fighting it.

What do I mean by this? Take, for example, the well-meaning question I get asked almost every day by friends and family: "Where are you thinking about going?"

That's a great question, and one that would be valid if I were, say, a lawyer or a doctor or in business or doing any other job. But in academics, you have almost no say whatsoever over where you go, especially for a first job.

That's right. It's basically a roll of the dice. You apply for every job for which you might qualify (in my case, probably 40-50 jobs), cross your fingers, and hope to be chosen as one of three of the 300 applications they'll receive for one spot to be brought in for a campus interview. If you get the campus interview, you have two days to prove yourself (or to make yourself look like a complete idiot). That's an exercise in torture that involves meeting all of the faculty, the dean, giving a job talk (which is basically a summary of your dissertation), and possibly teaching a class.

(Being as I'm in a top tier program, I've seen plenty of job talks in the last six years. And let me tell you, when they go wrong, it is not pretty.)

If you somehow manage to impress the department where you've interviewed, or if they're so divided over the other two candidates that they pick you as a compromise candidate, you get an offer. You usually have about two weeks to make a decision, which is often a challenge when you don't know whether you'll have any other offers. Should you take the job in less-than-perfects-ville for a mediocre salary, or hold out to see if something better comes along? Problem is, it's a super-competitive market, and you might not get another offer. But what if you do?

Now, of course, you don't have to apply for every job. Some of my colleagues refuse to apply for anything that isn't on the east coast. Some are constrained by their spouse's employment needs, or a desire to be in a place with culture, or a feeling that they deserve to be placed somewhere better.

These are the people who usually don't get jobs until March. And then they land a one-year visitng position in rural Minnesota.

Then there's the whole problem of academic hierarchy. I'm of the opinion that most top-tier PhD programs in any given field are pretty much the same, but, again, that's not how it works. I am lucky enough to be enrolled in a top 25 program in my field. But that doesn't mean I can get a job just anywhere. In fact, I can't get a job at any institution whose graduate program in my field ranked higher than is my program. There's no good reason for this; it's just the way it is.

(One thing that can help or hurt in the hierarchy is who writes your references. If you have a big, famous scholar writing a letter on your behalf (and that letter is positive), that ups your stock a little. Guess where most of the famous scholars teach?)

What this means practically is that, in the fall, most of the jobs in the field are offered to the same 6 people who go to Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Yale (the top ranked programs in our field). They make their decisions, and the rejected institutions then move into a second round of offering jobs.

Our job market lasts for more than 6 months. The job listings come out in July and August, applications are due in September and October, interviews happen October - April, in some cases. In general there are three rounds. What that means is that I could have a job by Thanksgiving, or Easter, or not at all.

I try not to think about the latter option.

Applying for an academic job means submitting massive amounts of paperwork, all of which have to be customized for the institution to which you're applying. An application packet generally includes a cover letter, a cv (which is a really long resume), a statement of teaching philosophy,
"evidence of teaching effectiveness" (which means something different at each place), three reference letters, and transcripts. It can also require a statement of research agenda and sample course syllabi.

Mailing all that ain't cheap.

The good news is, my ambitions are very limited. I've been a graduate student at two tier one research universities (the holy grail of academia), and if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that a career at one of those is not for me. I want to know my students' names, and am therefore aiming for a job at a place that values good teaching as much as skilled research. By not focusing on the super-competitive jobs at the top, my odds will be marginally better. I would also be very, very happy to take a job in the south, which helps as well in a crowd that's mostly interested in the New York metropolitan area. But again, it's not up to me.

As you can see, The Market is a fairly nerve-wracking process. You have to come off as competent, but not arrogant, and as a person who will be successful, yet still pleasant to be around. This weekend, I'll spend three days locked in a hotel with several thousand political scientists, beginning that process. Aren't you jealous?

‘Kansas vs. Darwin’