. . . to fill what some persist in believing to be a desperate need for good translations of the Good Book. This one’s called the Common English Bible, which is an improvement over existing translations because of . . . what? I’m not sure, except that it appears to use more contractions than most other versions. Which prompts me to ask: after so many decades, is the runaway proliferation of bible translations in English still about making the Word of God more comprehensible to ordinary people? Or is it by now about niche marketing?
Friday, October 8, 2010, 10:39 PM
October 8th, 2010 | 11:32 pm | #1
While I don’t doubt that many scholars find holy pleasure in translating the word of God, does anyone happen to know how much money is generated by a new best-selling English Bible translation? Is the Bible business much like the shady practice of issuing slightly revised editions of school textbooks every year?
October 9th, 2010 | 1:43 am | #2
This is really always grates me to NO end. As a Hispanic Baptist, I have seen some great works being left in English where they could be such a great help to my family back in Central America. Instead, another English translation. Walk into most Spanish Christian bookstores. Joel Osteen and the Word Faith phony’s hold the market. I would give anything to see something like the ESV Study Bible turned into Spanish.
October 9th, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #3
My guess is that it’s at least in part a response to the declining reading skills of the general population. (I teach college English; the overall level reading comprehension in my students is terrifyingly low. They can read the words, in a technical sense, but their ability to comprehend what the author is saying is lamentably low… especially if any complex syntax is involved.)
In the face of a readership who reads the Bible and says “Huh? I don’t get it,” one well-intentioned response is to say “Well, maybe we just need to make a translation that’s easier to read… fewer “old-fashioned” words, less complicated sentences, more “ordinary” vocabulary…”
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a long-term solution. You can have all the different translations you want, but if people don’t have an adequate vocabulary, nor the attention span to follow a complex thought, nor sufficient practice in sustained reading, you’re going to get the same result: functional non-literacy. The larger issue is a culture in which people don’t read, and an educational system that doesn’t foster reading (much less reading of complex texts).
As Christians, how much do we do in our local churches to foster reading? Do we encourage people to read just devotional snippets of the Bible, or do we model sustained, thoughtful reading of the Bible and of other serious books?
October 9th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #4
I find Ms. Ordway’s comment somewhat surprising. If thoughtful Bible reading requires such a high level of literacy (high, that is, relative to the global and historical standards of the general populace), then thoughtful Bible reading really is the privilege of the educated elite.
October 9th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #5
It`s probably a combination of these things. Some person/group thought they could translate the Bible more clearly and accurately than their countless predecessors. Then a Publisher smells a another way to make easy cash and goes for it. I think the Bible is still one of the top sellers every year (though not normally on best seller lists). The Christian pop culture and Christian media is a multi-million dollar industry, sadly in which the dollar trumps the Savior.
October 9th, 2010 | 4:32 pm | #6
Dr. Ordway (I’m making an assumption with that honorific): as a young linguist and Bible-translator-in-training, I have to agree with you on this. We can’t simply lower the bar. We have to raise up the students instead. You’re asking the right questions. If we could get more people to ask those questions, we could brainstorm a good solution.
C. Ehrlich: Well, there’s two skills involved. One is vocabulary/spelling/grammar, the basic building blocks of reading. The other is comprehension — the ability to follow someone’s thought expressed either orally or in writing.
For a very large part of history (even in Christian times), reading written texts was a technical skill not unlike computer literacy is today. In the first century, one person would read a text aloud and everyone else, whether literate or not, would listen to the reader. You see evidence of that in Rev. 1:3, for instance.
Yet despite the fact that knowing how to scribe and pronounce letters was a technical skill, following somebody’s line of thought (comprehension) was something most people could do to some degree, since people were exposed to literature even if they could not read it themselves.
Today, we have the reverse. People to some degree know how to read and write letters of the alphabet, but reading comprehension is just plain terrible. Most people also can’t follow complex sentences either orally or when written, either.
At base level: the problem is that people are not exposed to literature and do not develop the comprehension skills necessary to grasp any but the most basic concepts.
This is a problem. A friend of mine, based of Jer 29:11, believed that the next man she dated would be her husband. She set herself up for heartbreak and a loss of faith.
October 9th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #7
I think that this issue, has to be looked at, as a matter of priorities. The primary priority, of any translation, is to remain as faithful to the original, as possible. Obviously, it’s rather pointless, to read a translation, that’s so watered down, in its translation, that it’s essentially a completely different book, than its original.
Obviously, in any translation, there’s going to be be some aspect of the original language lost, let alone if one is intentionally attempting to make it more “accessible” to uneducated people.
So, we must accept, that any translation, of the bible, will make it slightly different, to say the least, than in its original hebrew, and greek, for the old and new testaments, respectively.
But some understanding is better than none, so if this translation stimulates people to learn more about the bible, in its original languages, print them out!
October 9th, 2010 | 6:55 pm | #8
Gary Simmons, it looks as if you are making the following claim:
That still strikes me as dubious. It’s not as if we’ve descended from some golden age when illiterate peasants all gathered around their hearth each evening for hour-long readings of Aristotle.
October 9th, 2010 | 7:56 pm | #9
C. Ehrlich: You’re right, that there was no real “golden age” of literacy, but we did, at one point, have a prevelant “great books” program, in colleges, and now, somewhat ironically, since people often, although erroneously, associate religion with the irrational, we find the great books studied in relgious colleges.
And part of the great books program, is developing literacy vis a vis the great works of western literature, which includes the bible.
Perhaps you’ve heard about the recent survey, that shows many, in the US, although believing christians, are profoundly ignorant of religion generally.
October 9th, 2010 | 8:20 pm | #10
Although I can’t defend U.S. Christians against the charge of being “profoundly ignorant of religion generally,” I would point out that the remarks about college education aren’t obviously relevant here. The question here is just how literate or educated a person must be to engage in a “sustained, thoughtful reading of the Bible.” If we put this mark very high, then thoughtful Bible reading becomes the unique privilege of the educated elite (at least by global and historical standards). This may conflict with the convictions some people have about the divinely ordained accessibility of the Bible.
October 9th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #11
C. Ehrich: This survey was taken just recently, I’m suprised that you’re unaware of it. Go to Newsweeks websiter to read it.
Certainly, to be able to understand the bible, presupposes a certain level of intellegence and education. And it’s fair to say, that at one point, an understanding of the bible, was part of our culture, which shows that, generally, people are capable of understanding it, it’s just that now, people, for whatever reason, choose not to remain literate.
October 9th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #12
Bret, I’m not sure we’re in disagreement. What is it that you take my own main point to be?
October 9th, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #13
I don’t think that we are either, C. Ehrlich. You make a good point, that, if the literacy bar is set too high, “ordinary” christians might find the bible inacessible, which seems like an odd thing for God to do, with a divine book; why not make it acessible, as possible. After all, how fair is it, to make a book, that’s necessary for salvation, only accessible to a certain portion of the bell curve, on the I.Q. scale, considering that intellegence is largely out of one’s control?
Since I think that Hell, if it exists, is empty, it’s really a nonissue.
October 9th, 2010 | 9:27 pm | #14
Cool–folks don’t often agree with me here. :)
Adding to what you say, there’s some precedent in God making his wisdom and truth accessible to children, and to those who aren’t very wise. For example, I think it was St. Paul who pointed out to the Corinthians that there weren’t many wise among them. The Newsweek article you cite seems to suggest that the trend continues.
That said, I don’t think everyone should object to God basing His decision about whom to save upon an IQ test–if indeed IQ isn’t something that a person achieves through personal effort (as you say, it’s largely outside of a person’s control). By making His selection on “natural IQ,” God would be showing His mercy to whomever he freely chooses (He freely chooses those who have a certain natural IQ). In other words, if God must avoid basing His decision on individual merit/effort, His choice of who will be saved is inevitably going to look rather arbitrary (in any ultimate sense, I don’t see how it could be otherwise). Therefore, perhaps He might as well base that choice on a lot of coin flips, or upon a trait determined by genetics and environment, such as IQ, if indeed it is such.
Perhaps I’m mistaken in what I say in this last paragraph, but I would like to know why.
October 9th, 2010 | 9:52 pm | #15
From the little I’ve seen of this translation, it looks very similar to the Good News Bible and the New Living Translation in its use of colloquial English. So why not read one of the latter two versions? Why reinvent the wheel? That’s what a lot of bible translators appear to me to be doing at this late date.
October 9th, 2010 | 10:03 pm | #16
The thought could be that colloquial English changes, that the science of Bible translation has gotten better, or that Bible translation is just one of those things that can always be improved. While I think that this last idea is somewhat plausible, I can also understand why a lot of people would be uneasy with it–perhaps for the same sorts of reasons that motivate the “King James only” crowd.
Perhaps because we’re talking about our access to the “inerrant word of God,” we have a hard time conceding that our Bible could always use improvement.
October 9th, 2010 | 10:49 pm | #17
Gary — I think you’re accurate in your continued analysis of the problem. (And yes, it is Dr., thanks!)
Independent silent reading of the Bible is, historically speaking, a relatively new thing — only made possible after the invention of the printing press. (Before that, manuscripts had to be copied by hand, making them extremely expensive — owning a book was about equivalent to owning an expensive car, or a house; if you were very wealthy, you might own two or three books.)
For centuries prior to that, yes, being able to read the words on the page was a skill limited to very few — but many more heard the Bible, either from it being read in church, or from it being read to larger groups (in monasteries or schools), or from it being paraphrased in sermons and teaching (in pre-literate Britain, for instance, the earliest missionaries raised “preaching crosses” — stone crosses carved with images from the Old and New Testament, which served to help the listeners remember what the missionary was telling them about the Gospel.)
Technical illiteracy isn’t necessarily a problem when it comes to understanding the Gospel.
In a pre-literate society, people are much more accustomed to hearing complex ideas expressed verbally — the Iliad and Odyssey, for instance, were originally sung and only later written down. In a sense, Western Civilization hit a sweet spot with the rise of mass literacy in the 16th through 19th centuries. (Remember that Dickens’ novels were the popular fiction of the day — not highbrow stuff!)
Electronic media, particularly television, is a new thing in terms of culture, and it has had significant deleterious effects on real literacy. (Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death is excellent in discussing this topic). The average person today is, I believe, genuinely less able to follow a complex thought than the average person of a generation or two ago — whether in writing or verbally.
Certainly, I see in my students a poverty of vocabulary and a lack of exposure to complex syntax that was not the case even when I went to high school, and I’m not even 40 yet.
The problem is not that people don’t read, but that people also don’t listen to sustained discussion (of anything), and they don’t think about things in a sustained way (you can’t think complex thoughts while listening to music and/or the television — and most of my students are addicted to their iPods and have little to no exposure to silence.)
October 9th, 2010 | 11:05 pm | #18
C. Ehrlich: good points. There’s certainly a profound mystery in how/why God would choose to save some, and not others. Since he created everything, the whole process, at least from our eyes, seems arbitrary. Some, such as the Calvinists, believe that God has already determined who will be saved, and who won’t, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
It’s my position, that one is already “saved”, by being a creation of God. It’s inconceivible to me that God would create beings, and allow them to be lost, forever. God’s goodness, and mercy, extends to all of his creation, whether we like it, or not.
October 10th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #19
I rather think that the proliferation of bible translations is part of the same mindset that produces such huge numbers of denominations in North America. There is a longstanding tendency to begin everything anew when we’re dissatisfied with the old. But wouldn’t it be better to refine the old and avoid wasting so much time and effort starting from scratch?
October 10th, 2010 | 2:50 pm | #20
Is it really preferable to have fifty different editions of the KJV, as opposed to fifty different translations of the original manuscripts (or various assortments thereof), with varying degrees of originality? For the reasons previously suggested, I suspect that both practices would be equally as worrisome to the average believer. Moreover, the idea of long chains of new Bible editions would require a level of consensus among translators that probably will never exist.
Though learning from the prior translations undoubtedly has its value, so also does the fresh start. It’s a mistake to criticize most Bible translations as “reinventing the wheel” or, as you say, “wasting so much time.” After all, we’re going to expect anyways that our contemporary translators consult the original languages directly, reconsidering the merits of the various manuscripts, etc. And, since translation is largely just a sustained and careful meditation upon the word of God, and how to best communicate it to one’s contemporaries, whose time is really being wasted?
October 10th, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #21
I think there are a number of factors involved. For a long time it was expected that the Bible would be commented on in public settings. That’s what ministers did and it was assumed that their training suited them for the task. This goes all the way back to the New Testament. From this perspective translators would not need to change their translations or come out with a new translation with every new generation. I think that is one of the reasons why the older translations such as Luther or KJV lasted so long.
The assumption now is that everyone should be able to access the Bible without any commentary or assistance. I think it is almost regarded as a right. In addition, there seems to be an assumption that translations should not be offensive to each generations sensabilities and therefore, since what offends constantly changes, the translations need to be adjusted and new ones need to be made regularly.
To be fair, though, there have been significant archaeological finds in the last century which have provided translators with significant additional material which helps to clarify previously difficult or opaque books of the Bible. I’m thinking of, for example, Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But there are smaller discoveries being made almost every year. Given all this new information and how it helps to illuminate the Bible it makes sense that a new generation of scholars would want to incorporate these new discoveries in a new translation.
Thanks,
Jim
October 10th, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #22
Dr. Ordway: I’m with you on this — and I’m a young Evangelical. Can you believe that?!
I often listen to dance music while writing or reading. It’s basically just beats with few or no words. As long as it’s nonverbal, it’s usually not distracting to me. If I’m reading the Bible aloud, I certainly prefer silence.
On technical illiteracy: I had to explain to a peer what her professor meant by writing on her paper to avoid passive voice. She was confused as to how she could be using passive voice. Her objection was: “but it’s past tense.” Not even an understanding of tense and voice. I honestly don’t think her confusion is altogether uncommon.
C. Ehrlich: Since you asked me to clarify my view, I’d be happy to. I take a mixed view on the history of literacy. I made a point of saying that even those who didn’t know letters still “to some degree” (my qualifying words in my last comment) had the ability to follow someone’s line of thought. I definitely don’t think most people could follow Aristotle. I do not believe any time is/was a golden age of literacy.
It’s just this: when there was no TV and radio was not available 24 hours of the day for entertainment, what did people do? Well, once upon a time people would listen to speakers — traveling preachers — who passed through town. I’m speaking of only one century ago, mind you. They certainly didn’t go there to zone out and think of other stuff. Not that nobody zoned out, but with less media there was less distraction. To a greater (though not ideal) degree, people were exposed to complex thought.
Even if a preacher only came through once every three months, that’s more frequently than the average person today engages in complex discussions. With no TV and little or no radio, people relied more on poetry and prose for entertainment. That is simply that.
October 10th, 2010 | 6:59 pm | #23
Gary Simmons, your argument now seems to rely on the following claim:
I don’t know about others, but this still strikes me as dubious. Are you supposing that such sermons were on average like those of Bishop Butler, or like the writings of Jonathon Edwards? Shouldn’t we rather suspect that such sermons were more likely to resemble those of a long-winded Billy Graham? Moreover, and also like the sermons of today, don’t you think that sermons of the past were also typically about the same old lessons and the same old stories–things that many of these villagers and peasants heard repeated many times from an early age? Even if a lesson is a bit subtle or prolonged, you don’t need much of an attention span to comprehend it–when you’ve heard it a dozen times.
October 11th, 2010 | 2:32 am | #24
I think it may be a bit more nuanced than, say, an episode of Friends. Fortunately, TV doesn’t require you to keep your focus on it for more than seven minutes before commercials cut in.
I also doubt the quality of traveling evangelists’ preaching skills, though I do not doubt God’s ability to work through them. My point is that people were still following an argument, even if it be a familiar one.
October 11th, 2010 | 3:02 am | #25
Gary, let’s be clear. The claim that your argument needs is not there is something that Americans do today that is less cognitively demanding than following the argument of a traveling preacher. The claim you need is also not that God can work through the traveling preacher, or that people back then could follow the preachers argument. The claim you apparently need is the one I stated above in #23. And that’s the claim that seems dubious.
October 11th, 2010 | 11:47 am | #26
It seems that this translation seeks in part to provide a more thought-for-thought (compared to the NRSV’s more word-for-word), less theologically conservative translation (compared to the ESV and T/NIV).
For instance, the translation takes a definitive stance on men and women in the church. I notice in 1 Tim 2, the CEB chooses “wife” and “husband” for the main text with “woman” and “man” in a footnote, whereas the NRSV, TNIV, NIV, ESV, and most other translations have the reverse.
In chapter 3, they render the overseer’s qualification as “faithful to their spouse” (no footnote for an alternate!) and with the genderless pronoun “they” throughout, rather than “married only once” (footnote: “the husband of one wife”) with pronoun “he” throughout (NRSV), “faithful to his wife” (TNIV), “the husband of but one wife” (NIV), or “the husband of one wife” (ESV, with footnote: “Or a man of one woman”).
And on the meaning “women” in v. 11 (deacons’ wives or women deacons?), the CEB has “women who are servants in the church” (this time with a footnote “or wives”; n.b., not “or spouses” as above) vs. the NRSV’s “women” (footnote: “Or Their wives, or Women deacons”) vs. the TNIV’s “the women” (footnote: “Probably women who are deacons, or possibly deacons’ wives”) vs. the NIV’s “their wives” (footnote: “or deaconesses”) vs. the ESV’s “Their wives” (footnote: “Or Wives, or Women”).
October 11th, 2010 | 1:25 pm | #27
Bret Lythgoe,
Bret said:
“It’s my position, that one is already “saved”, by being a creation of God. It’s inconceivible to me that God would create beings, and allow them to be lost, forever.”
If I understand you correctly, Bret, are you saying that just by the nature of being born a human, one is ‘saved’?
October 11th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #28
My own experience, and also the agreement of a professor who teaches English, is enough for me to believe the claim is not dubious. You may believe as you wish, however.
October 11th, 2010 | 10:21 pm | #29
Hi Steve, it’s great to talk with you, again.
Yes, I don’t believe that God would create a being, and then send him/her to Hell. It contradicts His infinite goodness, in my view.
The usual reason, that many Christians give, for why one would be sent to Hell, is that the person in question has rejected Christ. But who, in his/her right mind, would do such a thing?
An analogy would be a mentally ill person, who wishes to kill himself. Some might argue, that this person, on the basis of personal autonomy and liberty, has a right to commit suicide. But a much more rational conclusion, would be that this person, is incapable of knowing what’s in his best interests, and therefore one must prevent him from killing himself.
Similarly, would ANYONE, in his/her right mind, legitimately, choose to reject Christ, and choose to go to Hell, for eternal torment?
October 12th, 2010 | 10:39 am | #30
Thanks to the writer of comment # 26 (whose nombre I prefer not to repeat!) for the comparisons between the CEB and other versions.
As for different versions of the Bible representing different translation philosophies, this is certainly true. Moreover, given the existing manuscripts on which translators draw, the latter are bound to make decisions, when confronted with differences, as to which rendering is the most likely to be original. The result is that any translation will be a mix of MT, LXX, Qumran, &c. But each will be a slightly different mix. Thus one can expect that, however similar the CEB is to the GNB and the NLT literarily, it will inevitably translate some passages differently from these other two. I suppose it really depends who’s on that particular committee and what consensus, if any, they were able to come to on specific passages. There will never be full agreement on what constitutes the right mix.
Nevertheless, I believe that, despite the impossibility of a “perfect” translation of the Bible, we can be confident that we have access to the Word of God.
October 12th, 2010 | 12:28 pm | #31
I think it’s important for critics of the Common English Bible to read it. The CEB website has a passage lookup tool that covers the entire New Testament: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/ And, if you have a Kindle, the CEB Kindle edition is FREE on Amazon this week.
Also, on the CEB blog, the associate publisher Paul Franklin addresses reading level and why this was an important consideration in the new translation: http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Connect/Blog/ViewBlog/tabid/209/ArticleId/66/Reading-levels-explained-66.aspx
Finally, comparing translations reveals that the CEB was not some slapped together Bible. The translation team comprises more translators from more diverse backgrounds – and more original texts – than any other Bible translation. (See the Comparison Chart on the CEB website.) An important point to consider.
October 12th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #32
David (#30),
I agree with what you say. I’d add that thought-for-thought and word-for-word translations both have a place. I wasn’t dumping on either.
Moreover, it is apparent that the NT writers themselves were using translations of the OT like the LXX at least some of the time, and Jesus almost certainly taught primarily in Aramaic, not Greek, which means we’re reading him in double translation. (Some speculate that Matthew was originally written entirely in Aramaic and translated to Greek, while others understand Papias’s “logia” to be a collection of Aramaic sayings of Jesus compiled by Matthew which were used in the composition of at least his gospel — perhaps even being identical to the hypothesized “Q” source.)
As for my nombre, it’s merely an obscure reference to Patrick O’Brian. :-)
October 13th, 2010 | 5:28 pm | #33
“The usual reason, that many Christians give, for why one would be sent to Hell, is that the person in question has rejected Christ.”
That probably would the answer most Christians would give, but their pastors would hopefully tell them it’s incorrect.
The reason people go to Hell is because they are sinners who sin. Sinning it not mental illness nor is any given instance of sin beyond a person’s ultimate control.
Saying people go to Hell because they reject Christ is like saying people drown because they failed to grasp the lifeguard’s hand. No, they drowned because water filled their lungs, rendering them unable to breathe. The failure to grasp the lifeguard’s hand is not the cause of drowning, it is only the failure to be saved from it.
October 13th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #34
Yet Another English Bible….
Just another Bible to burn for these Bible-Burning Muslims:
Malawi Muslims Burning Bibles.
Where’s the outrage and condemnation from the Loudmouth Liberals for these Sacred Text-burning Muslims?
October 14th, 2010 | 2:38 am | #35
Pentamom: Through Christ’s resurrection, sinners are saved. Your position seems to be that, one must accept what Christ did, or one will not be saved.
In other words, if we all are sinners, then we all depend on Christ for our salvation, correct? You say that people go to Hell because they sin. What saves them? Accepting Christ. That is your position, correct?
It’s my position, that no one really “deserves salvation”. You seem to imply that, if we sinners, accept Christ’s salvation, we don’t go to Hell. We kind of “earn it”, through our acceptance. It’s my view that no one, would reject Christ, if he/she really knew what Christ was/is. Therefore, because of God’s infinite mercy, and through his resurrection, all are saved. Why? Because God loves all of His creation, and realizes our complete dependence on Him.
Are you implying that Christ’s resurrection is incapable of atoning for all?
October 14th, 2010 | 2:53 am | #36
Pentamom: Also, if I could, your position, relies on humans having free will. Obviously, it would be completely unjust for God to send people to Hell, if they had NO CHOICE but to reject Him?
Certainly free will exists, I’m not disputing that. What I am disputing is, that any mere human, would have the proper ability to judge, whether or not Christ is for him/her, because this would presuppose that he/she, REALLY understood Christ. But who can say that? Our understanding of Him is profoundly limited, due to the large ontological distinction, between Him and us. Therefore, if anyone claims to have made an “informed decision”, that Christ is not for him/her, he/she MUST be wrong, because he/she does not really know, what he/she is rejecting, and it would be unfair for God to send this person to Hell, when this person WOULD accept Christ, if he really understood Christ.
The corollary, is true as well: those who claim to have accepted Christ, really don’t fully understand what/who they’re accepting, so their salvation, is rather hollow.
October 16th, 2010 | 12:17 am | #37
A little late perhaps for my comments, but I wish to go back to the beginning somewhat.
What I think is at issue is a “culture of distraction” as it has been called. The Bible can be perplexing reading even for someone like myself, who has a post-graduate degree in biblical studies. That is as it should be, but does not make it then, by nature, inscrutable or only for nerds. I think the question is not one of intellect or even skill. Maturity plays a role. But perhaps it is a problem largely of our habits, or lack of the right ones, for bible reading, prayer, meditation, spiritual practice, even worship, ones which our culture no longer cultivates very thoroughly, things that require attentiveness, focus, listening, self-discipline, etc.
I don’t think God has made a mistake by giving us the gift of scripture without the means to hear it (“faith comes by hearing” remember?). There are some good preachers out there (and some very bad ones, but you can’t have it all). I think it is certainly possible that the plurality of translations may not be offered with the purist intentions, but I welcome them if they make the scriptures that much more accessible or in some way appealing. Frank!’s lament is worth noting. If there is any elitism going on, it is to the English-speaking American consumer who has his/her pick when it comes to the wealth of biblical and Christian literature available, but would rather wait for the movie version.
Anyway, we are people of the Word, are we not? It seems to me that we practically have a duty to God to more or less fast (at least sometimes, if not regularly) from the things that are damaging to our ability to hear that word. Pick your distraction. Perhaps we need a ministry of reading (I thought you were going this direction Bret), and one of speech, rhetoric – not just teaching it as a home school movement as some are doing, but seeking to preserve and care for language and share this sense of devotion, ultimately so that others may come to know Jesus. The form matters.
When missionaries went into other lands the first thing they had to do was not only learn the language, but often teach it back to the people they learned it from – developing a grammar and even at times a script so that they could eventually translate the scriptures into the native tongue (Vietnam comes to mind). Perhaps we are entering something like this situation, when the job of reaching people with the Gospel will involve a new kind of illiteracy we have not yet faced. What Holly Ordway describes sounds uncannily like machine knowledge with all the “technical sense”, but none of the coherence that comes with that very God-breathed aspect of our humanity that none of our technology can match – consciousness. Perhaps we truly are being anesthetized by our appetite for entertainments and technologically delivered information over wisdom acquired through attentive practice.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact