A Passion for Participles

“Let them not drag me into court

if the text does not agree with the original word for word,

for, try as you may, it cannot be done.”

Erasmus, Apologia 170:20-1

  

Translating accurately from one language to another is not easy. Translation is both science and art, and it always occurs within a spectrum. That spectrum ranges from the paraphrase on one end to the semi-literal on the other end. And every translation is dependent upon the skills of the translator. This is what makes Bible translations such a difficult (and prickly) topic. But just so we get a picture of how tough translation can be…

  

Imagine that you happen to be fluent in both English and Icelandic, and, today, you are working as a translator for an English speaking guide and a group of Icelandic tourists. Your group is hiking in the woods. You round a corner and suddenly the guide stops and turns to you. “There are bears around here,” he whispers. “Tell them” – he waves at the group of Icelanders – “to keep their eyes peeled!”

Ok. You turn to the group and start to translate his comment. “There are bears around here, be sure you…” Oh, oh. Now what? You are faced with a dilemma. Should you choose a ‘literal’ word-for-word translation (“Maintain your eyes in a sliced-open, outer-layer pulled back position!”) or an ‘idiomatic’ translation (“Watch what is happening around you!”)?

Well, this may seem like a silly question. You’ll choose the latter, of course. But if you do, you have affirmed that, in some cases, a paraphrase is a more helpful and accurate translation than a literal translation. Hmm.

This illustration highlights only one of the many challenges that translators face. There are many more. In the case of Bible translation, translators are also confronted with a multiplicity of manuscripts some with slight variations in their texts.  How should they determine which is the original text? And, then, when they have determined the most likely text, should they use a paraphrase, an idiomatic translation, or a semi-literal approach?

Bottom line? Accurately translating and effectively communicating the truths contained in the Scriptures is a complex task.

That said, what, then, are we to make of all the different translations? And which one is best?

My suggestion is that there is no one “best” translation. There are many excellent translations and paraphrases, and they all have their use.

But let’s get specific. Let’s list a few of the available versions and briefly discuss their merits.

Semi-Literal Translations. I would include here: The King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). Each of these attempts to mirror the text as closely as possible. One benefit of these translations is that they often leave syntactical decisions to the reader. Participles, for instance, are often (though not always) left as participles, permitting the reader to determine for himself or herself the relationship it has with the main verb. One possible drawback of these translations (when compared to others) is that their methodology may increase one’s need for well-developed critical thinking skills, for knowledge of the texts’ far and near contexts, and for a higher-grade-level reading ability.

Dynamic Equivalence Translations. The main example of this sort of translation would be The New International Version (NIV). The translators of this version seek to translate by meaning as well as by terms. One benefit of this is that it may aid readers in comprehension. Many syntactical decisions are made by the translators, and the reading grade-level is lower. One possible drawback of these translations is that the translators’ theological biases are more likely to slip into the translation. (And we all have biases. No one is neutral). I have a friend who believed the NIV was unfairly biased in favor a those with evangelical theologies!

Paraphrases. The two examples of these which come to mind are The Message and The Living Bible (not to be confused with the New Living Translation). These paraphrases seek to ‘say again’ the meaning of the text in the culturally relevant forms of one’s environment. One benefit of this is that such paraphrases are generally very readable. They often read more like a modern storybook than as an ancient text. In addition, this may make complicated ideas more accessible. One possible drawback of paraphrases, however, is that they may wander too far from the intended meaning of the text and abandon the true meaning of the text.

  

Those are just a few examples. There are many other translations out there, such as the Holman Standard Christian Bible (HSCB) and the New Living Translation (NLT).

http://www.christianuniversitiesonline.org/the-bible/

So, having looked at the various types of translations, which ones should you use for your Bible reading? And is it better to use one than another?

My suggestion is that you use them all. Just use them wisely. The most important things to know about a translation is what sort of translation it is, whether those who translated it were qualified to produce a trustworthy translation, and whether the translators had adequate access to the manuscripts and fragments. All these can be learned by reading the introduction included in your Bible.

For myself, I use the semi-literal translations when seeking the most accurate wording of the text, comparing them to see where they agree and differ on wording. This helps me recognize where texts vary. (I also use the texts in the original languages, but you can have great confidence in your English resources. The translations you have are extremely accurate, and you can determine the textual nuances with great precision by comparing the various translations.)

I use the dynamic equivalence translations to gain an overall flow of the text. I find this particularly helpful in the Old Testament, particularly in the poetic books. The NIV seems to capture the spirit of Hebrew poetry exceptionally well. I also find the NIV helpful as a resource to see how the translators evaluated and understood syntactical relationships, such as how a particular participle should be understood.

And I use paraphrases the same way I do commentaries. They help me to see how other Christians understand the text. Sometimes they help me to see things in ways I hadn’t seen them before.

Generally, I think of reading the Bible in differing translations as being a bit like fine-tuning a radio signal. In the old days, our car radio had a push button that brought to the general location of a radio station. Then, we would use the knob to fine-tune our reception of the signal. A little to the left, a little to the right, until we could hear clearly. As I read differing translations, the Holy Spirit enables the Word of God to become clearer and clearer to me, informing my understanding, convicting my heart, and calling for wholehearted submission.

Finally, let me say why I entitled these thoughts “A Passion for Participles.” I like participles, and I like them to be left as participles when they are translated. Doing so permits me to determine for myself the relationship that participle has with the rest of the sentence.

Let me briefly explain. Here’s a sample sentence: “Running, he arrived at school.” There are many possible ways to understand the nuances of this sentence. It may mean, “Although he ran, he arrived at school.” (That’s a concessive usage.) Or it may mean, “He ran to school.” (That would be an instrumental use, thus stressing the means by which he arrived at the school.) Or it may mean, “While he ran, he arrived at the school.” (That would be a temporal usage, stressing the fact that his arrival at school occurred during the act of running.) And there are many other possibilities. You can see that the original sentence can be interpreted and then translated in many different ways.

My problem with this sort of thing is that a translator who changes a participle into a verb or adjective has taken a step away from translation toward interpretation.

But I can hear what you’re saying. Doesn’t the example given at the beginning of this discussion demonstrate that all translation involves interpretation? Well, yes, it does. Good point.

The question isn’t whether translation efforts require interpretation. All translations do. The question is one of extent. I, personally, prefer those translations that leave as much interpretation as possible with the reader. And that means keeping the participles in the text. And, generally, for me, that means sticking with the semi-literal versions.

So, there it is. Just a few thoughts on Bible translations. Which translations do you use when you read the Bible?

 “So they read distinctly from the book,

 in the Law of God; and they gave the sense,

and helped them to understand the reading.”

Nehemiah 8:8

The Heuristics of Hermeneutics

“This is the essence of intuitive heuristics:

when faced with a difficult question,

we often answer an easier one instead,

usually without noticing the substitution.”

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

Nicole and I look forward each year to Geneva Library’s book sale. If you time your visit well, you can score bags of books for just a few dollars. So, this year, when the moment came, we made our yearly pilgrimage to the library’s basement. Arriving there, we found that the deals abounded in the young adult section -- 25¢ a book, paperback or hardcover! We moved in, collecting our ‘finds’ and stacking them in the corner before returning to the table to search for more. We split up, moving quickly to beat the other browsers to the best deals. (Picture Black Friday shopping at Walmart, but with books rather than electronics.) Our stack grew taller.

A few minutes later, I picked up a book from the table and studied its contents. As I did, I walked around the table past Nicole. She was leaning over the books. I was focused on the book, but in my peripheral vision I saw her picking through the books. As I passed her, I reached out and gave her bottom a ‘love pat.’

I heard a surprised “Eep!” She sprang upright. I turned.

There, standing just a few feet away from me, was a fiftyish-year-old woman with a very red face. And she was decidedly not my wife! I had just patted a stranger’s bottom.

Oh my. I don’t embarrass easily, but I was really embarrassed. “I am so sorry,” I stammered, “I thought you were my wife.” I moved away, raising my hands into the air and affecting as much contrition as possible. “I am… so… so sorry.”

The lady was very kind and did not slug me, and I appreciated that. She laughed it off, and I went to the far side of the room and tried to find a corner in which to hide. Really, not a good experience.

I’ve had a little time to think over this experience, and I have come to the conclusion that I fell prey to the ‘familiarity heuristic.’ (I know, I know. Some of you are thinking I fell prey to the ‘stupidity heuristic.’ Hmm, maybe so. But I do think the ‘familiarity heuristic’ played a role.) Let me see if I can explain that.

The word ‘heuristic’ comes from a Greek word meaning “to find.” We use a derivative of the same root word when we recount Archimedes’ exclamation of discovery, “Eureka!” When used in discussions of thinking processes, the term refers to problem solving or learning methodologies that utilize pragmatic or practical means to attain immediate goals. Such methodologies are not perfect, but they are helpful approximations, permitting people to make decisions quickly and without undue effort. So, ‘heuristics’ are thinking approximations. And they go under a variety of names: ‘rules of thumb,’ ‘educated guesses,’ ‘intuition,’ and ‘common sense.’

The advantage of heuristics is that they permit us to process run-of-the-mill information in quick and non-intrusive ways. Think of your daily drive to work. You’ve done it many times, so your brain is able to put itself into a sort of ‘auto-pilot.’ You are driving the car, but at the same time you are able to listen to the radio or think about other things. You do not need to focus exclusively on the driving.

Many types of heuristics have been identified by researchers. One of these is the ‘familiarity heuristic.’ This heuristic allows someone to approach an issue or problem based on the fact that the situation is one with which the individual is familiar, and so one should act the same way he has acted in the same situation before.

Okay, let’s put aside the question of whether I should be giving my wife ‘love pats.’ She would probably say no. But let’s simply acknowledge that it is a questionable habit into which I have fallen. When we’re out shopping or walking or doing something like that, I often randomly walk up behind her and give her one. (Yes, at the least partly for the joy of hearing her say, “Knock it off.”)

Looking at this from a heuristic perspective, the situation at the book sale was one with which I was familiar. I am shopping near my wife; I am walking by my wife; I want to annoy my wife…  All familiar territory. Then, without confirming the perceptions of my peripheral vision, and without disengaging the auto-pilot, I act in the same manner as I have before. I reach out and smack her butt.

And here is where I fell prey to the familiarity heuristic. I permitted my perceived familiarity with the situation to cloud my judgment, and I blew it. Big time. I patted the stranger’s bottom.

Now, most of you are smarter than me and are not going to pat the stranger’s bottom. Good. But that does not mean that you are immune from the dangers of the familiarity heuristic. We all are.  And, today, I want to suggest one area in which we must be particularly careful to avoid being led astray by this heuristic – the interpretation of Scripture.

It seems to me that this danger increases with one’s reading of the Bible. The more one reads the Scriptures and knows them (or believes himself to know them), the more he is at risk of assuming certain things. Let me give one example from my past.

The first verse I ever memorized was John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” I believe that this is the first verse many Christians memorize, and with good reason. It does sum up the Gospel, doesn’t it?

But the word in this verse I want to look at is the word “whosoever.” This word, from the King James Version, communicated to me (rightly or wrongly) a certain openness concerning the invitation. Anyone could believe. And I accepted that and absorbed it into my younger theology, believing I had a ‘proof text’ for that belief.

Many years later, I had the opportunity to translate that passage for myself. And I was shocked. The ‘so’ of ‘whosoever’ was not there. It never had been. The text reads, literally, “…that every one who is believing on Him might not perish but might have life eternal…”  a reality that is reflected in the modern translations, including the New King James, which translates the text “that whoever believes in Him.”

I had previously seen this text as a possible proof text in support of a general election or even non-election viewpoint. But seeing it in the Greek, I was forced to conclude that it could not accurately be used to support either a non-election or an election viewpoint.

This is a relatively small example, I suppose, but I think it serves to highlight the dangers of allowing our familiarity with the text to determine and reinforce our theology. We must be aware of our default to avoid the heavy work of thinking, and we must be willing to refocus our attentions and reexamine the texts. We must endeavor to disengage our autopilots as we read the Scriptures, and we must seek to read them as they truly are.

What do you think? Are we at danger, occasionally, of patting the wrong theological bottom? What must we do to avoid those errors?

 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,

a worker who does not need to be ashamed,

rightly dividing the word of truth.”

2 Timothy 2:15

A Hint of Summer

“And when you will be gone,
just like every one else,
I will cry for you like the snow

that melts at the first hint of summer.”

Sanhita Baruah

A friend recently said she had a theological question for me: Will she and her husband still be married when they reach heaven?

When I heard her question, I felt relieved. From a Scriptural standpoint, this is a relatively easy question to answer. It wasn’t as if she had asked me to articulate and defend a particular order of salvation. And I gave her my answer, summarized briefly here:

The Sadducees once asked Jesus a similar question (Matthew 22). They described a situation in which seven brothers had each married a woman and then asked, “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?” Jesus responded by saying, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” So, Jesus taught that marriage will not continue in heaven. Pretty clear.

Also, the Apostle Paul used the temporal nature of marriage to underscore the reality that the Law only holds sway until death (Romans 7). He wrote that a woman is bound by the law to her husband “as long as he lives” but is released if he dies. If he dies, he declared, she is free to remarry. So, Paul affirmed as true what Jesus had already taught.

Furthermore, these Scriptural points are reflected in most marriage ceremonies – sacred or secular, as the couple vows to be faithful “till death do us part.” Yep, even humanity’s ‘natural instinct’ generally endorses the truths proclaimed by Christ and affirmed by His Church.

So, the bottom line, I explained, from a Scriptural standpoint, is that marriage between a man and a woman does not extend into heaven. The answer to her question, quite simply, was no.

I said all this, and then, looking at my friend, saw she was crestfallen.

 “Oh,” she said. “Oh, that’s sad… I love him so much.”

As she said that, I realized that I had once again permitted my brain to race ahead of my heart. I had given my answer without considering the emotional impulse that had driven her question. You see, the source of her question was very different from that of the Sadducees. They had been seeking to test Jesus and trick Him into a logical contradiction. They were attempting to win at a religious mind-game. But she wasn’t. Hers was no game. She was not trying to establish a proposition in a theological argument. She was not thinking of her relationship with her husband in terms of metaphor.

Her question was an expression of her love’s desire. She loves her husband, and the idea of losing the special intimacy she enjoys with him is crushing. I could see that, for her, my answer had turned the prospect of glory into a burden, not a blessing. Wow.

What can we say to all this? How could I have given a better answer?

Well, I think we can say that most of us have experienced similar feelings. We marry because we enjoy and appreciate the unique qualities of our spouses. And even with all the imperfections and annoyances of living in a fallen world, we treasure our spouses and our marriages. We recoil at the idea of losing that special intimacy. So, we share her concern.

And we can say that, still, we, as believers, must embrace the Scriptural realities that the current marital relationship between a husband and a wife is temporal. To do otherwise is to ignore God’s Word.

And we can also say that we must, as believers, affirm God’s Goodness and the superior blessing of Eternity with Him. Glory – our abiding future lives with Him – is uniformly presented in the Scriptures as immeasurably superior to life in this sin-cursed world. The constant proclamation of Scripture is that “the best is yet to come!” We have a future prepared for us that is better than anything we can imagine, the gift of an infinitely loving and good God. Glory will not be a burden; it will be a blessing!

But how then can we reconcile these thoughts with the emotional impulse expressed in my friend’s question?

I would like to offer a few suggestions for your consideration. (And, yes, I mentioned these to her.) See whether you agree or disagree with me…

First, my friend’s emotional impulse is a healthy one. The desire to see intimate fellowship continue for eternity is good and appropriate. Humanity was created for everlasting relationships. Death is the anomaly; death is the interloper and disrupter of fellowship. We should all desire intimacy to continue eternally.

Second, marital intimacy is a foreshadowing of spiritual realities. Paul describes the relationship between Christ and His Church using marriage as his metaphor. And there is more to his metaphor than as a mere blueprint for governance and roles. It speaks of intimacy, of an intimacy that extends to Christ and His Church universal. So, in short, the best of marital intimacy is an imperfect foreshadowing of an intimacy to be enjoyed between Christ and all believers.

Third, this intimacy between Christ and believers is an ‘already-not yet’ reality. We enjoy an intimacy with other believers now that we did not know before our conversions. And we will enjoy an oneness with God and other believers then that will transcend anything we have known yet.

Fourth, we ought to reframe the emotional question, turning it from its presupposition of loss to a presupposition of gain. Glory will not entail the loss of special intimacy with one’s spouse; it will entail the gain of special intimacy with all believers! Marriage will no longer be necessary because we will all enjoy the intimacy of marriage. Or, in other words, the intimacy of which earthly marital love hints will one day be fully realized in the eternal communion of the saints in glory.

What do you think? Do you agree? Are these answers emotionally satisfying? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

“And the glory which You gave Me

I have given them, that they may be one

just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me;

that they may be made perfect in one.”

John 17:22-23a

--Christian Pilet

Playing the Fool

“Like a madman who throws

firebrands, arrows, and death,

Is the man who deceives his neighbor,

And says, "I was only joking!"

Proverbs 26:18-19

Did you know that Americans bought more than 1.5 million ‘Pet Rocks’ in the 70s? They came with a cool cardboard box ‘home’ and an instruction pamphlet on proper ‘care and feeding,’ and they sold for $4 a rock. That’s roughly $22 a rock by today’s dollar. Wow.

Younger people reading this might think I’m pulling an April Fool’s joke, but, no, I’m not. We Americans really did buy them. Many of us plunked down four bucks to buy a baby boulder. So maybe there was a fool at the end of this fad – all of us.

But it was all in good fun, and no one was harmed. I saw today that the marketing genius behind the fad, Gary Ross Dahl, passed away on March 23 at the age of 78 in southern Oregon. That is a shame. I’m thankful for his life and for having lived through such a crazy mania. And I’m thankful for all those mature rocks now released into the wild, and for the fact that they still require no human labor or time commitment.

Speaking of April Fool’s jokes, did you realize that today is April First? Yep, this is the day of pranks. And I thought I would do a little digging and see what I could find on the day’s origins. Here’s what I’ve come up with. This comes from Charles Panati’s Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things:

 “Many different explanations have been offered for the origins of April Fool’s Day, some as fanciful as April Fool jokes themselves.

 “One popular though unlikely explanation focuses on the fool that Christ’s foes intended to make of him, sending him on a meaningless round of visits to Roman officials when his fate had already been sealed. Medieval mystery plays frequently dramatized those events, tracing Christ’s journey from Anna to Caiaphas to Pilate to Herod, then back again to Pilate. (Interestingly, many cultures have a practice, predating Christianity, that involves sending people on ‘fool’s errands.’)

 “The most convincing historical evidence suggests that April Fooling originated in France under King Charles IX.

 “Throughout France in the early sixteenth century, New Year’s Day was observed on March 25, the advent of spring. The celebrations, which included exchanging gifts, ran for a week, terminating with dinners and parties on April 1.

 “In 1564, however, in beginning the adoption of the reformed, more accurate Gregorian calendar, King Charles proclaimed that New Year’s Day be moved back to January 1. Many Frenchmen who resisted the change, and others who merely forgot about it, continued partying and exchanging gifts during the week ending April 1. Jokers ridiculed these conservatives’ steadfast attachment to the old New Year’s date by sending foolish gifts and invitations to nonexistent parties. The butt of an April Fool’s joke was known as a poisson d’Avril, or ‘April fish’ (because at that time of year the sun was leaving the zodiacal sign of Pisces, the fish). In fact, all events occurring on April 1 came under that rubric. Even Napoleon I, emperor of France, was nicknamed ‘April fish’ when he married his second wife, Marie-Louise of Austria, on April 1, 1810.

 “Years later, when the country was comfortable with the new New Year’s date, Frenchmen, fondly attached to whimsical April Fooling, made the practice a tradition in its own right. It took almost two hundred years for the custom to reach England, from which it came to America.”

Okay, that was interesting. I like history. But now I wanted to hear some awesome pranks that people have done. And, after a little searching, I found several that pretty amazing. Here are a few of my favorites:

Burger King Fragrance for Men – Burger King in Japan supposedly released a fragrance today entitled “Flame-Grilled” for men who want to smell ‘sexy and wild.’ I couldn’t find a clear statement whether this is a prank, but I’m having trouble believing it isn’t. Then again, some weird things have come out of Japan. You watch the video and decide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ehArJQts9M.

Spaghetti Harvest in Switzerland – BBC produced this documentary in 1957 to show a bumper spaghetti harvest following an unusually mild winter. The footage lasts three minutes and features a family from Ticino, Switzerland, picking strands of spaghetti from the trees and drying them in the ‘warm Alpine sun.’ You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU

Color Television in Sweden – In 1962, when most Swedes were still watching black and white images on their televisions, Svierges Television station broadcasted a special interview with a “technical expert” on how to view color images through their sets. Kjell Stensson explained that researches had recently discovered that stretching a pair of tights over the TV’s screen would bend the light’s wavelengths and produce a color image. This probably explains the short-lived surge in Swedish purchases of girl’s tights.

The Islands of San Serriffe – This is one for the more nerdy set: On April Fool’s Day 1977, the British newspaper, The Guardian, published a travel supplement on the tiny tropical republic of San Serriffe, “a small archipelago, its main islands grouped roughly in the shape of a semicolon, in the Indian Ocean,” which was purportedly celebrating ten years of independence. The supplement celebrated the fact that parliamentary democracy had been “in part successful” and the caption under one of the photos described “the many beaches from which terrorism has been virtually eliminated”. The special report included a variety of typographical jokes including the two main islands - Upper Caisse and Lower Caisse.

A Little Weightlessness – Astronomer Patrick Moore announced on April 1^st, 1976 the impending arrival of a once in a lifetime astronomical event in which the planet Pluto (when it was still considered a planet) would pass directly behind Jupiter. Moore told BBC listeners that at exactly 9:47 a.m. the rare alignment of the two planets would temporarily decrease gravity on Earth. He said if people jumped in the air at that exact moment they would experience a floating sensation. The BBC later received dozens of calls from listeners claiming the floating experiment had worked.

Penguins – In this brief BBC documentary produced in 2008, film maker and writer Terry Jones reveals a colony of penguins unlike any other penguins in the world. You can watch this amazing video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4.

Ah, that’s all fun. It’s actually kind of fun to be fooled sometimes. And being fooled by these little pranks can prove instructive. It reminds us of our too-human propensity to play the part of fools. We can all be deceived, and even when we sidestep one deception, we can fall into another. We laugh at the person who falls prey to a joke, and then, we turn and fall prey ourselves.

This tendency to fall into deception is concerning, because most deceptions are not funny or well-intentioned. Most deceptions are designed to either take advantage of us or hurt us, and we would be wise to be alert to the possibility that we might be being deceived.

Nowhere is this truer or more dangerous than in the spiritual realm, as that is where our eternal destinies are at stake. Beyond that, we know that it was the serpent’s deception of Eve that precipitated humanity’s fall into sin. And we know that it is the deceptiveness of our own sinful natures that nurtured our continuance in sin and death. Indeed, it is only as He Who is “The Truth” came and liberated us, that we were able to escape the bondage of deception and walk into the Light of God’s Truth.

Today, I would like to encourage you to watch out for two powerful spiritual deceptions at large in the world today. The first is the belief in the non-existence of God. This deception is nothing new, of course. It has been propagated throughout human history. Today it has been championed by writers such as Richard Dawkins and Isaac Asimov. But the Scriptures are clear on this deception: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1) – Now, since I’m writing here to believers, I am not delving into the arguments for God’s existence, nor trying to prove the atheists wrong. I take it as a given you have already concluded that they are. What I am focusing on here is an encouragement to you, as a believer, to be wary of the proclamation and infiltration of this world-and-life view, into our homes, families, and communities. We could spend much time here pondering the ways in which atheistic thought has penetrated the homes of Americans, but time will not permit. Let us simply be aware of the danger.

The second powerful spiritual deception I would encourage you to watch out for is a belief in the non-importance of God. This is a more subtle but, I believe, more pervasive deception. This line of thought permits the holder to slide into an easily held position concerning the existence of God (ranging from the “well, I think there probably is a God” to the “yeah, absolutely, I believe there is a God”) and then relegate that God to a position of no importance in his or her personal life. Within this deception is this presupposition: God’s existence just doesn’t really matter.

This latter deception is a great threat to us believers. If we are believers, we must remember that we came to Him in faith. We must be wary of our tendency to wander. If we do wander, we may find that the sun stills rises and the rain still drops, and we may mistake this common grace for divine impotence, seeing it not as it truly is, as divine forbearance. “Things remain the same,” we might conjecture, “whether we are faithful or not.” And we will find ourselves playing the fool, forgetting that every good and perfect gift comes from His hand, and that our salvation is realized “out of faith, unto faith.” We must remain wary of this deception. Let us examine our hearts and see if there is yet any disbelief within them.

My father passed away on March 31, 2004. He died around 11 PM. Another believer came to me and said, “Praise God for the Father’s stamp of approval on your father’s life, in taking him on this night and not on April Fool’s day. He was no fool. He knew and loved the Lord.” Amen. That was true. My dad knew the Lord, and he knows Him now. He was no fool, in this life or the coming one.

May the same be said of us. May we be wise and flee the deceptions of this age. May it be said ultimately of us that we know Him, and that He is our all. Amen.

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you

seems to be wise in this age, let him become

a fool that he may become wise.”

1 Corinthians 3:18

--Christian Pilet

The Presence of Shelter

“I will abide in Your tabernacle forever;

I will trust in the shelter of Your wings.”

Psalm 61:4

 Earlier this week I stumbled upon a book entitled “Good Night, Mr. Tom” by Michelle Magorian. Published in 1981, it chronicles the fictionalized life of a young evacuee during the Second World War. The evacuee, a young boy named William, is placed into the care of an old man in the English countryside, and through the old man’s loving care, comes to embrace life. I have not finished the book yet, but so far I have enjoyed it.

Last night as I was reading, I came across the following: “We’s got another busy day, William. Got to start diggin’ a trench for the Anderson shelter this afternoon. That’ll put muscles on you.” I read this and wondered what an Anderson shelter was. So I searched on the Internet and was surprised by the amount of information available concerning these shelters. I quickly realized that for a generation of Englishmen, Anderson shelters were as much a part of the collective consciousness as grocery stores and pubs. Here’s a little of what I found:

In 1938, when the Prime Minister Chamberlain announced that war with Germany had commenced, he tasked Sir John Anderson with preparing the homeland against German error raids. Anderson, then, oversaw the design and production of an inexpensive bomb shelter that came to be known as the “Anderson Shelter.”

These shelters were designed for six people. The main section was formed from six corrugated steel panels. Flat corrugated steel panels were bolted on to form the sides and the ends of the shelter, one of which contained a door. The shelters were 4.5 feet wide, 6.5 feet long, and 5.75 feet high, and were constructed above ground before being placed into a hole dug about 3 ½ feet deep. Once they were placed, they were buried with a thick layer of dirt and grass.

3.5 million shelters Anderson shelters were built in Britain during the war, and many of them still remain. In the days of the war, these little shelters littered the countryside, a visible and constant reminder to that generation of the threat of death from the sky.

When I read this, I realized afresh how difficult it is for a reader to enter into the minds of another generation. We can read the words of a narrative and still fail to place it within its historical and emotional context. It is difficult, for example, having not lived through that period of time in England, for me to understand the continual psychological stress these folks endured.

I think this information about a bomb shelter struck a chord with me because I also grew up with a bomb shelter. When my parents built their home in 1963 in Seattle, they had a bomb shelter built into one end of the basement. I was told that, in the case of a nuclear attack, I was to go to the shelter. This was consistent with the teaching I received in my elementary school about a possible nuclear attack. We were taught to ‘duck and cover’ under our desks in the case of a nuclear attack. The message was clear: an atomic bomb could explode any moment.

I do not know how this affected the other children. I know how it affected me. I lived in anticipation of the bomb. I wasn’t immobilized by fear, but the thought of nuclear war did infiltrate my daily life and my confidence in the future. It was a fear lurking in the shadows of my mind.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan became the president of the United States, and around that time I began to hear began concerning something called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). This initiative sought to escape the ‘mutual assured destruction’ policies of the previous years by creating and implementing a sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system which would prevent missile attacks from other countries reaching the United States. Wow. Perhaps, just maybe, I realized, incoming nuclear missiles could be shot down.

The first time I heard of SDI, I experienced a wave of hope. The anxiety I had carried since childhood, an anxiety I barely recognized, lessened. For the first time, I had hope that nuclear war might not mean the end of life as we knew it.

Younger people who did not go through the Cold War nor remember the “duck and cover” days will have trouble understanding and appreciating what the Strategic Defense Initiative meant to me. It is probably like trying to explain to someone my age what it was like for Englishmen to build and stock 3.5 million Anderson shelters.

Yes, the passage of time makes it difficult to enter into the experience of previous generations. The historic events and experiences I have been discussing all occurred within the last hundred years, and, in terms of history, that is a very short amount of time. And it is still difficult.

Well, if this is the case with events and experiences that occurred in the last hundred years, imagine the challenge of entering into events and experiences that occurred 2000 years ago -- or 4000 years ago! That challenge would be further complicated by differences not only in historical events, but also in language and culture.

This is the difficult task we face when we first read our Bibles. When we approach our Bibles, we find that we are reading documents written thousands of years ago. We are forced to cross barriers of time, culture, language, and geography as we seek to understand what the writers say. And this is not an easy task. But we need not despair. As long as we’re willing to do some work, we can cross those barriers. We have many resources to help us: the Holy Spirit (first and foremost), and then also commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and so forth. With study and reliance upon the Holy Spirit, we can discern the original meaning of the texts and reconstruct their contexts, sensing even the emotional surroundings.

The other difficult task we face as we read the Scriptures is making its teachings relevant to our lives today. We must find a way to take the experiences and teachings from the Bible and apply them to our lives. Or, to say it another way, we must rend the time-bound timeless, and then render the timeless timely. And again, it can be a difficult task. But here also, we need not despair. Again, our greatest resource is the Holy Spirit, and then we can also use commentaries and the like. With effort, we can identify contemporary situations, problems, or questions that are truly comparable to those faced by the original audience. And we can find analogous situations, and personal and communal applications.

Yep, if we are faithful and obedient in studying God’s Word, we will, by His grace, grasp more and more of what is presented to us. We will internalize the truths of God’s Word and permit them to bear fruit.

As I close, let me apply the two examples I gave above. I’m sure that for many Englishmen the Anderson shelter came to represent hope – hope of deliverance from death and hope of deliverance to life. For me, SDI symbolized a similar hope. The cross of Jesus Christ can be likened to these two things. The cross – in all it represents, the crucifixion, Resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ – symbolizes ultimate hope -- the ultimate hope and deliverance from eternal death and the ultimate hope of deliverance to eternal life. And now, even as a broken-down Anderson shelter can remind me of a past hope, the Cross of Christ and the Empty Tomb can remind me of my future hope.

I trust that as you study the Scriptures this week you are, by God’s grace, entering the biblical world and applying it to your lives.

“To them God willed to make known

what are the riches of the glory

of this mystery among the Gentiles:

which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Colossians 1:27

-Christian Pilet

Failing Forward

“My flesh and my heart fail;

But God is the strength of my heart

and my portion forever.”

Psalm 73:26

“It’s the last minute of the Super Bowl, and we’re down by six! The quarterback comes up to the line…” Every schoolboy since the mid-60’s has chanted those words. He takes the snap from an imaginary center, fades back, and launches a long bomb to the receiver in the end zone. And it’s caught, miraculously, inconceivably, unbelievably! “And the crowd goes wild!” he shouts. “There’s never been a comeback like this one! What a game! What a quarterback!”

That little drama has been played out in backyards, schoolyards, and playgrounds for years, and always with the same outcome. The quarterback is the hero. Success has been achieved against all odds. And, when it is all done, the only bittersweet taste in the mouth of the actor is that it’s not real, not yet. But, maybe, someday, it will be… just believe and hope.

AP Photo/David Goldman

For Russell Wilson, that dream started to come true last Sunday night. It was the last few minutes of the Super Bowl, and his team was within one touchdown of taking the lead. He had led his team to within a yard of that touchdown, and then he took the snap and faded back to make a pass. And then… and then he threw an interception, and lost the game.

There it was. Every boy’s dream turned into a nightmare reality. He had failed.

As I watched the game end, I wondered what it would be like to be in Wilson’s shoes. This must have felt, in some ways, an ultimate failure. There was no way to take it back. The loss was permanent, and it could not be remedied by a win another day. The annals of football history would always record that the Patriots had won the 49^th Super Bowl after Wilson threw an interception in the final minutes. He would always be remembered as the one who lost the championship game. That’s tough. I felt for him.

Failure isn’t something reserved for superstar quarterbacks, of course. We have all experienced failure at one point or another. And some failures are really intense and bring permanent results. Some failures cannot be fixed. Sometimes relationships cannot be renewed. Sometimes losses cannot be recovered. Sometimes reputations cannot be restored.

What are we Christians to do when we fail in these big, spectacular ways? How are we to cope?

Here are three suggestions for how we can cope with big failures and how we can keep from letting them determine the course of our future lives:

• Accept the Truth

One of the hardest things to do when we fail is to admit that we have failed. The reality of failure threatens the core of our self-esteem, and our minds go to great lengths to deny it. We may try to redefine the term “failure.” (“It wasn’t really a failure.”) Or we might try to redefine the event. (“It would have been a failure if this other thing had happened, but it didn’t, so it wasn’t a failure.”) Or we may try to lay the blame on another person. (“It wasn’t my failure, it was his or her failure. It just looks like it was mine.”)

The failures that are most troubling are moral, and these prove the hardest for us Christians to accept. They arouse pangs of conscience as we sense that we have fallen short of God’s standards. We stand convicted by both our conscience our God’s Word.

In these failings, it is all the more essential that we recognize and accept the truth. It will do no good to deny the truth. We have transgressed God’s moral law, and it is only as we confess our sin that we realize renewed fellowship with Him. The beauty of confession – the act of “speaking the same thing as God does” about an action or attitude – is that it bears psychological fruit as well as spiritual renewal. It permits the confessor to embrace the past as it is, to accept it without attempting to reconstruct it, and it allows the confessor to move on, having left the failure fully in the past.

For the Christian, confession of the truth is an expression of a full judicial absolution that has been granted in the past, is present in the future, and is certain in the future. Because of the act of justification wrought through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, the believer gains the restoration of fellowship with the Father through confession. He can move on in both temporal comfort and in the certainty of eternal glory.

• Adopt an Eternal Perspective

These thoughts lead us to the next suggestion. When we fail (thinking here particularly of moral failures), we must adopt an eternal perspective. This means that we need to recognize that our failure has occurred within the sphere of God’s gracious sovereignty, and His grace is magnified all the more as that failure has become irrevocably part of our testimony. As the record of one’s past can never be altered, so now this failure will always be recorded – for the glory of God!

This is not to suggest, of course, that God is responsible for our failure. It is only to assert and affirm the theological truth that where sin is discovered in the believer, God’s grace is demonstrated supreme. His grace and mercy covers all. And in this He is and will be glorified! What is most amazing is not that we sinful humans fail morally, but that God’s grace in Christ Jesus is sufficient to cover the greatest failings.

Remembering these truths, even in the midst of confession, is a source of continual strength and joy. Even as we come to Him with contrite and humble spirits, we can affirm that “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” Our failures, no matter what they are, are not the end. Our end as believers is ultimate victory, not ultimate failure!

• Act with Confidence

And these thoughts lead us to a final suggestion. As we confess our failures and adopt an eternal perspective, we are free to act, once again, with confidence. We are freed to consider the past as just that, the past, and to redirect our attentions to God and His commission. We are liberated to realign ourselves with theological truth, realizing that God has not called us to be immobilized by memories of failure. He has called us to set our sights fully on Him and to move forward with confidence in the making of disciples. So we can, and must, put our failings behind and push forward – for His glory.

As I consider this idea of failure, I am reminded of Peter’s great failing. He had vowed to stand beside Jesus and defend Him, even at the cost of his very life. But when the moment of truth came, Peter failed, and he fled as coward. Three times he denied even knowing Him. Failure. And there is no way to erase this from history. It is how it happened, and it will always be a part of Peter’s history.

But that is not the end of Peter’s story. Rather, he wept and suffered, but Jesus restored Him. And more than that, He used him to preach the first sermon of the Church age and to usher on that day three thousand souls into the Church. Wow. And that was just the beginning. Peter was greatly used by God and, ultimately, gave his life gloriously as a witness (martyr) to the Savior. This is the power of God’s grace!

Russell Wilson’s failure was not a moral one. I just want to make that really clear. But, still, he has, in its aftermath, followed these three paths. Since Sunday, he has publicly accepted the truth, stating that the play call and the interception was his fault.  He has also adopted an eternal perspective. He is a believer, and following the game he tweeted this comment: “I will love You, O LORD, my strength. (Psalms 18:1 NKJV).” That is an eternal perspective! And then, he has decided to act with confidence. After the game, he also tweeted this: “Thank You God for the opportunity. We’ll be back… I will never waiver on who He has called me to be…” And that’s acting with confidence!

I hope these thoughts are helpful for you in your life as your press forward. May God grant you the grace, no matter what the occasion is, to accept the truth, adopt an eternal perspective, and act with confidence!

“Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us,

and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.”

Hebrews 12:1-2

-- Christian Pilet