"For the LORD is great and greatly to be praised; He is also to be feared above all gods" (1 Chronicles 16:25). Praise may well be the life blood for those who believe in the Lord and trust in Messiah. It is a remarkable way to pull our attention off of ourselves and focus on the very God of creation. As believers we are often welcomed into a worship service with a set of Worship Songs or Praise Music. I, for one, have a pretty diverse appreciation for the gift of music. I can tap my foot to contemporary compositions or bask in quiet appreciation for the subtle complexity of "Rhapsody in Blue". Drum and Bugle Corps impress me with their sound and precision. While classical music can stir my soul. God has truly blessed us with an amazing variety of music. From Blues to Beethoven, Jazz to Gregorian Chants, Rock to string quartets and don't forget those acapella groups. Harmonies that lift our hearts to another realm.
Over these past few months I have had the opportunity to begin some renovations on our "fixer upper" that the Lord allowed us to purchase last year. Spending most of the time there by myself, I have enjoyed the company of a local Christian radio station. What I have noticed is the consistent focus of the contemporary music they play. I do want it understood that I am not complaining, judging, finding fault or intending to be critical. As I said, I appreciate a broad range of musical talent and expression. However, I have found the music to be remarkably myopic. It is focused upon "me". There are songs of adoration and simple praise and most get to that, however, it seems that God is praised because of what He has done, will do or is doing for the singer. Not much in the way of just praising God for who He is. There are exceptions, but they are the exceptions. I checked out the top Christian Songs for 2017 on line and these titles were among the top ten: "Even If", "I Have This Hope", "Home", "Unfinished", "I Wanna Go Back", "The Cure", "Fearless",.The number one song was "What a Beautiful Name" by Hillsong United, which is pretty much a song of praise. The others have a pretty strong message of what God can or will do for me. I do know there are different lists and they change all the time. My point here is that we are producing a great deal of music that is focused on what God does rather that just on God Himself.
Admittedly, David has lots of Psalms that speak of his journey, failures, pleas for help and feelings of abandonment. However, there are also lots of songs that just praise God for who He Is. A favorite of mine in Psalm 19. I relate to it every time I look up. The heavens really do proclaim the glory of God. One of my most powerful moments in worship was being on the Washington Mall years ago with two million other men
singing, "How Great Thou Art". That time of combined voices in praise burned a lasting impression into my
soul. Some of the older hymns do that for me.
We all have lives filled with stress, opportunities for anxiety, family and friends with cancer or some other life threatening illness. We have jobs, family responsibilities, bills, repairs, and the wounds that come from caring and betrayal. It can be a challenge to find time to be in God's Word and to pray. Our prayer lists just grow with the needs of others and the needs we carry ourselves. It seems almost unreasonable to "Be still and know that He is God". We relate to the contemporary songs that speak of loneliness and wondering where the Lord is in all of this. Add to this all the turmoil of the world and we can feel those moments of desperation and confusion. We know He is there and we know we can trust Him, yet finding the words to just give Him praise and thanksgiving can escape us.
Perhaps this is a result of our western culture. To be self-focused. To see ourselves as individuals. Aware of our personal needs and personal relationships. We are centered on a personal salvation and a personal relationship with God. David saw things differently. He did indeed have his Psalms of personal needs, but take a look and see how many include the nation, the people, and Israel as God's chosen ones. Biblical prayer, praise, and petition is more often communal that not. It is about the nation's failures and sins. "We have sinned" is more common that "I have sinned". Praise also centered in the community far beyond the Holy Days. Maybe we feel alone because we isolate ourselves so well.
It is possible that I am just being a bit picky. Songs that seems self-focused are still songs intended to honor our God and Savior. They do serve a purpose and bring encouragement to our hearts. They can relieve that feeling of isolation. They are good for what they are and I do not suggest we toss them away or even stop writing them. But, perhaps a few more songs about just praising God because He is would be worthwhile. God does so much for us and provides so much for us that it is easy to see that aspect of who He is. Our redeemer, protector, provider, deliverer, friend, and confidant and so much more.
We were challenged once, as a student body at Capital Bible Seminary, to take our forty minute chapel time, find a place of solitude, and come to God with thanksgiving and adoration. However, we were not supposed to ask for anything. Not for ourselves, our families, our ministries, or friends. Just spend forty minutes in simple thanksgiving, praise, and adoration to the God who is worthy. It was way harder that you might imagine. Our self-focused lives and tendency to come to God with a list of requests makes extended time in communion with God without it most difficult.
That is my challenge to you. Start small. Let's say Twelve minutes. God seems to like the number twelve. Find a quiet place to come to Almighty God with adoration and no requests.If you find twelve too challenging, God seems to like seven and three as well. In time, perhaps we can work up to that forty number and learn to bask in His glory with nothing to ask but much to adore.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Monday, July 24, 2017
Church or No Church, That Is the Question
Have you ever wondered where words come from or how they came about? We pretty much take them all for granted. However, when you consider how many there actually are and the new ones being invented (Googling, and texting have not always been with us), it is a pretty amazing thing. Then compound that with the plethora of languages and dialects, the billions of words bouncing around is beyond amazing. In one way or another they are used to communicate things from one person, group, or generation to another. Words are pretty much my life. I teach with them, offer counsel, encouragement, and I also write them in a number of different forms. I also read them, lots of them. Every day of my life in filled with words. I sometimes even sing them in my car when the windows are rolled up. Words have been around for a long time and some have even changed a bit over the years. I like words. In my study I like finding out where they came from and what they meant at the time and in the culture they were spoken. There is likely a bit of archeologist and anthropologist woven into my DNA.
As the years have gone by I have noticed that some folks like to use long or complicated words. If you go to seminary you no longer talk about sin but rather hamartiology. Study of the Spirit is pneumatology. It does not make the study any clearer but it does sound impressive. Did you know there are common words we read in Scripture that we simply accept, which are not the words that the text holds. Translators add and delete words as they attempt to make their translations more clear or more acceptable. There are words the translators use or avoid using due to political pressure and fall-out. They may even conceal the original intent due to bias or subtle prejudice. For example, many of the names in the New Testament are Jewish. However, at the time of King James, there was a bias against the Jews, so we have James instead of Jacob, Simon instead of Simeon, and Mary instead of Miriam. We also have the word "baptize" which is a transliteration of the Greek baptismos. The simple translation is to immerse, dunk and is used of washing in Hebrews 9:10. However, as the king of England was an Anglican who believed in infant sprinkling. The Anabaptists, who taught immersion for believers, were a group in disfavor at the time. Thus, the translators chose to make the Greek sound English rather than talk about immersing people or John the Immerser. Neither would have been appreciated by King James. It was not wise to irritate the king so they invented an acceptable word.
The word of interest for today is the very common word "church". It replaces the Greek word ekklesia, meaning "assembly". In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ekklesia is used to translate the Hebrew word for assembly every time. But not so in the English translation of the new Testament. Here, ekklesia, magically turns into the word "Church" whenever it refers to an assembly of Messianic believers. Assembly is used whenever ekklesia refers to a political group or gathering of people (See Acts 19:32 and Acts 23:7). So why this new word "Church" to refer to the Messianic assembly? Where did it come from? The best guess and most closely related words from the time the Scriptures were translated in 1611seems to be chirche, circe,or kirk. They are Middle English or Celtic words for a circle where people gathered for some kind of worship. The Stonehenge is the remains of one example. It was originally a place of pagan worship but grew into a general term for a religious gathering. The Greek word kuriakon, meaning "of the Lord" is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s, kuriakon, supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s, kuriakon" day.” or "Day of the Lord". Some attempt to find the word "church" here, however, I believe that is a stretch in an attempt to find a Biblical word to justify a translation that never occurs anywhere in Scripture. Assembly is the normal, reasonable, and accurate translation of the word ekklesia.
This being so, why the odd use of "church" in our English translations? And, at this point, does it really matter? We all know what the church is. Well, actually, it is seen now more as a building than an assembly. We go to church, we build a church, and we meet at the church rather than being the church. Only a relative few would think of this as a gathering of Messianic followers. Followers of Jesus or Christ, perhaps, but not the Jewish Messiah. Setting that aside, the word church is now fully accepted and has come to be defined as a place where Christians gather. So when we read the New Testament we understand these are groups of Christian believers. The people who gathered at that time would never have thought that, but that is beside the point. My concern is that there has been, and continues to be a great divide between Judaism and what has become the church. The early assembly of believers were made up of Jews and Gentiles meeting at the Synagogues and in homes learning about the Scriptures (read Old Testament here, it was all they had) and how to follow the Jewish Messiah. We do not need to return to the Synagogues (though an occasional visit might be worthwhile). However, we should not forget our Jewish roots.
Whether or not we want to believe it, the "church" has been quietly guilty of a form of antisemitism in our translations. From removing Jewish names to borrowing words from pagan meetings, English translators have tried to deny and hide the Jewish reality of the New Testament times. Find this hard to believe? Look up James 2:2. Here the translators are more than willing to use the word assembly or meeting, "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings" (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and RSV), "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes" (NIV). The word translated "assembly" or "meeting" is synagōgē, synagogue. The word synagōgē, is translated as synagogue everywhere else in the New Testament, but not here. Why? Because we know that James is writing to the church and we know they would not be at the synagogue. However, in truth, Jacob did write to the assembly of Messianic followers meeting at the synagogue. The translators, and many who say they follow Jesus, find this so hard to believe they simply hide from or ignore the truth.
So do you go to church or an assembly of Messianic followers? Does it matter? I guess that is up to you to decide.
As the years have gone by I have noticed that some folks like to use long or complicated words. If you go to seminary you no longer talk about sin but rather hamartiology. Study of the Spirit is pneumatology. It does not make the study any clearer but it does sound impressive. Did you know there are common words we read in Scripture that we simply accept, which are not the words that the text holds. Translators add and delete words as they attempt to make their translations more clear or more acceptable. There are words the translators use or avoid using due to political pressure and fall-out. They may even conceal the original intent due to bias or subtle prejudice. For example, many of the names in the New Testament are Jewish. However, at the time of King James, there was a bias against the Jews, so we have James instead of Jacob, Simon instead of Simeon, and Mary instead of Miriam. We also have the word "baptize" which is a transliteration of the Greek baptismos. The simple translation is to immerse, dunk and is used of washing in Hebrews 9:10. However, as the king of England was an Anglican who believed in infant sprinkling. The Anabaptists, who taught immersion for believers, were a group in disfavor at the time. Thus, the translators chose to make the Greek sound English rather than talk about immersing people or John the Immerser. Neither would have been appreciated by King James. It was not wise to irritate the king so they invented an acceptable word.
The word of interest for today is the very common word "church". It replaces the Greek word ekklesia, meaning "assembly". In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, ekklesia is used to translate the Hebrew word for assembly every time. But not so in the English translation of the new Testament. Here, ekklesia, magically turns into the word "Church" whenever it refers to an assembly of Messianic believers. Assembly is used whenever ekklesia refers to a political group or gathering of people (See Acts 19:32 and Acts 23:7). So why this new word "Church" to refer to the Messianic assembly? Where did it come from? The best guess and most closely related words from the time the Scriptures were translated in 1611seems to be chirche, circe,or kirk. They are Middle English or Celtic words for a circle where people gathered for some kind of worship. The Stonehenge is the remains of one example. It was originally a place of pagan worship but grew into a general term for a religious gathering. The Greek word kuriakon, meaning "of the Lord" is used twice in scripture: 1 Cor 11:20 The “ Lord’s, kuriakon, supper;” and Rev 1:10, the “ Lord’s, kuriakon" day.” or "Day of the Lord". Some attempt to find the word "church" here, however, I believe that is a stretch in an attempt to find a Biblical word to justify a translation that never occurs anywhere in Scripture. Assembly is the normal, reasonable, and accurate translation of the word ekklesia.
This being so, why the odd use of "church" in our English translations? And, at this point, does it really matter? We all know what the church is. Well, actually, it is seen now more as a building than an assembly. We go to church, we build a church, and we meet at the church rather than being the church. Only a relative few would think of this as a gathering of Messianic followers. Followers of Jesus or Christ, perhaps, but not the Jewish Messiah. Setting that aside, the word church is now fully accepted and has come to be defined as a place where Christians gather. So when we read the New Testament we understand these are groups of Christian believers. The people who gathered at that time would never have thought that, but that is beside the point. My concern is that there has been, and continues to be a great divide between Judaism and what has become the church. The early assembly of believers were made up of Jews and Gentiles meeting at the Synagogues and in homes learning about the Scriptures (read Old Testament here, it was all they had) and how to follow the Jewish Messiah. We do not need to return to the Synagogues (though an occasional visit might be worthwhile). However, we should not forget our Jewish roots.
Whether or not we want to believe it, the "church" has been quietly guilty of a form of antisemitism in our translations. From removing Jewish names to borrowing words from pagan meetings, English translators have tried to deny and hide the Jewish reality of the New Testament times. Find this hard to believe? Look up James 2:2. Here the translators are more than willing to use the word assembly or meeting, "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings" (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, and RSV), "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes" (NIV). The word translated "assembly" or "meeting" is synagōgē, synagogue. The word synagōgē, is translated as synagogue everywhere else in the New Testament, but not here. Why? Because we know that James is writing to the church and we know they would not be at the synagogue. However, in truth, Jacob did write to the assembly of Messianic followers meeting at the synagogue. The translators, and many who say they follow Jesus, find this so hard to believe they simply hide from or ignore the truth.
So do you go to church or an assembly of Messianic followers? Does it matter? I guess that is up to you to decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)