9/25/2021
決定
蒼靈
今年七月我服侍的一個成立了26年的基督徒藝術家機構因為疫情的持續，無法支撑下去。在同工禱告和相議後，決定結束這個事工。我在這機構擔任舞蹈部門的主管已經有5年，在去年九月被邀請加入行政委員會。在决定結束26年事工的這事上，我跟委員會的同工們是一致。凡事都有定期，天下萬務都有定時。 生有時，死有時。栽種有時，拔出所栽種的，也有時（傳3:1-2）。大家都認同這事工的使命已經達成。多年來這機構造就了很多的藝術家去延續敬拜藝術的使命，這是該結束的時候了。
然而這個決定有連鎖反應，會直接影響我就讀神學院的博士課程；因我研究的主題是跟這個事工掛鈎的。我經過禱告，叫好姐妹們為我代禱，並與丈夫商議，求問牧師的建議。在百般的掙扎中，包括主教授提出的優惠和給我的施壓，我做了一個不容易的決定：退學！因繼續走下去只是紙上談兵，雖然寫了25頁論文初稿的構架，花了很多個晚上不睡覺去研究，白頭髮也突增，我是不想放手的！但我在細思牧師的忠言，這個論文主題若沒有實在的事工平台是很難走下去的。我也不想急忙去找一另個機構掛鈎或創辦一個新的事工去配合論文的主題。我早點退學可以用自己的時間和精力做別的事情。
我這個決定最清晰的印證是丈夫的一句温柔的話：“I want my wife back!“ 完全沒有投訴之意，也不是叫我感到內疚。其實丈夫一直很支持我的，他也不在乎吃外買和我不做家務。他很體貼我的忙碌。但當我寫論文和做研究時，我的心思和意念是全然地投入的，我是沒有時間跟他聊天。做這個決定時我正忙統籌七月底芝加哥户外的舞蹈藝術節，真的是分身不暇！
我明白神“關門” （機構的結束），是 “開路“ （讓我退學）。邏輯上好像不太合理，那為什麽祂讓我進去這個課程？“懷恩季刊”三月份这期的 “這一年” 一文詳述了我申請入學的過程。想不到這事工竟然結束並终止我的論文和研究。 這個我仍不太明白，但現在已經不重要去反覆問神為什麼。
這幾個月來的緊逼生活，讓我很貼近神。凡事都倚靠祂，求主賜給我智慧，加添我的能力。經文説，靠著那加給我力量的，凡事都能作。這一個學習已經告一個段落，然而我的生活仍面對不同的挑戰。我母親在我出埠旅遊回來後的第二天，便在香港安然離世了。我今季的舞蹈團也面臨突然而來的挑戰。平靜無憂的生活好像跟我搭不上，我想這也是生活的一部分吧。每天清晨都是一個決定，決定以什麼心態面對新的一天。
主耶穌，我感謝祢。這一周袮的恩手帶領我走過幽谷。祢也彰顯祢的作為是何等奇妙！除了祢以外，在天上我有誰呢？除袮以外，在地上我也無所愛慕的。我以主耶和華為我的避難所，述說你一切的作為。我每天面對的挑戰，祢都知曉，好叫我有倚靠祢的心，全然順服，明白一切都是與我有益的。
奉主耶穌的名求，阿門。
蒼靈
今年七月我服侍的一個成立了26年的基督徒藝術家機構因為疫情的持續，無法支撑下去。在同工禱告和相議後，決定結束這個事工。我在這機構擔任舞蹈部門的主管已經有5年，在去年九月被邀請加入行政委員會。在决定結束26年事工的這事上，我跟委員會的同工們是一致。凡事都有定期，天下萬務都有定時。 生有時，死有時。栽種有時，拔出所栽種的，也有時（傳3:1-2）。大家都認同這事工的使命已經達成。多年來這機構造就了很多的藝術家去延續敬拜藝術的使命，這是該結束的時候了。
然而這個決定有連鎖反應，會直接影響我就讀神學院的博士課程；因我研究的主題是跟這個事工掛鈎的。我經過禱告，叫好姐妹們為我代禱，並與丈夫商議，求問牧師的建議。在百般的掙扎中，包括主教授提出的優惠和給我的施壓，我做了一個不容易的決定：退學！因繼續走下去只是紙上談兵，雖然寫了25頁論文初稿的構架，花了很多個晚上不睡覺去研究，白頭髮也突增，我是不想放手的！但我在細思牧師的忠言，這個論文主題若沒有實在的事工平台是很難走下去的。我也不想急忙去找一另個機構掛鈎或創辦一個新的事工去配合論文的主題。我早點退學可以用自己的時間和精力做別的事情。
我這個決定最清晰的印證是丈夫的一句温柔的話：“I want my wife back!“ 完全沒有投訴之意，也不是叫我感到內疚。其實丈夫一直很支持我的，他也不在乎吃外買和我不做家務。他很體貼我的忙碌。但當我寫論文和做研究時，我的心思和意念是全然地投入的，我是沒有時間跟他聊天。做這個決定時我正忙統籌七月底芝加哥户外的舞蹈藝術節，真的是分身不暇！
我明白神“關門” （機構的結束），是 “開路“ （讓我退學）。邏輯上好像不太合理，那為什麽祂讓我進去這個課程？“懷恩季刊”三月份这期的 “這一年” 一文詳述了我申請入學的過程。想不到這事工竟然結束並终止我的論文和研究。 這個我仍不太明白，但現在已經不重要去反覆問神為什麼。
這幾個月來的緊逼生活，讓我很貼近神。凡事都倚靠祂，求主賜給我智慧，加添我的能力。經文説，靠著那加給我力量的，凡事都能作。這一個學習已經告一個段落，然而我的生活仍面對不同的挑戰。我母親在我出埠旅遊回來後的第二天，便在香港安然離世了。我今季的舞蹈團也面臨突然而來的挑戰。平靜無憂的生活好像跟我搭不上，我想這也是生活的一部分吧。每天清晨都是一個決定，決定以什麼心態面對新的一天。
主耶穌，我感謝祢。這一周袮的恩手帶領我走過幽谷。祢也彰顯祢的作為是何等奇妙！除了祢以外，在天上我有誰呢？除袮以外，在地上我也無所愛慕的。我以主耶和華為我的避難所，述說你一切的作為。我每天面對的挑戰，祢都知曉，好叫我有倚靠祢的心，全然順服，明白一切都是與我有益的。
奉主耶穌的名求，阿門。
9/24/2021
Follow-Up to Bible Teaching Workshop—Sneaky Ways to Get the Shy Involved
Pastor Johnny
Pastor Johnny
At our Bible-Teaching Workshop last month, I was asked the question, how do we get shy students to participate? I admitted that it is even a problem when I try to teach. So, I promised to think about the problem and provide some suggestions.
1. At the workshop, I suggested using “open-ended” questions rather than questions with a specific right or wrong answer. For example, rather than asking how many days and nights Noah and his family spent in the ark, maybe a question like, “How bad do you think the ‘cabin fever’ was in the ark?” or “How long do you think the family was in the ark before the first argument took place?” The number of days (though one can calculate them from the Bible) is a factoid; the thought questions suggested above try
to help students identify with realities we have in common with those characters.
I also suggested that rather than just asking people to speak up, have them write what they think on a sheet of paper, have everyone fold their papers identically, have everyone turn the papers in, shuffle the papers, and then, read the responses aloud and ask the class to comment on them. Even if they don’t comment aloud, they have already participated by writing their answers down.
2. This technique shouldn’t be used every week because it would lose its impact AND it requires extra floor space to do. For this, you should prepare labels for each of four corners in your room. I suggest that the four labels can be: “Agree, Mostly Agree, Disagree, and Mostly Disagree.” Explain to the class that they will be voting on some statements where the answer is not necessarily right or wrong. They will vote with their feet by going to the corner that fits their response. Then, you can get them to vote on a statement like: “Baptism is an important first step in demonstrating our faith” or “The New Jerusalem is only part of the New Heaven and Earth promised in Revelation.” After everyone is somewhere, remind them that there is no totally right or wrong answer (though the second example here is mostly true) and ask some from each group to explain why they chose that answer.
3. Choose key verses from the text you are studying. Assign each person in the class to write a paraphrase (rewriting the verse in their own words to try to make it simpler to understand) of a verse. It is a good idea to assign them their verse secretly so that you can just assemble their papers and read the verses aloud to start the discussion. Optionally, you could ask for volunteers to read their verses, but that probably won’t work in a class full of shy people.
4. Put a big sheet of butcher paper or poster board on the table, divided into two columns (Maybe Old Covenant / New Covenant or Faith / Unbelief). Pre-cut identical pieces of paper or construction paper (or use 3x5 index cards) and write possible answers. For Old Covenant/New Covenant, you might write the following answers: “Sacrifices,” “Law,” “Passover,” “Lord’s Supper,” “Grace,” “Baptism,” “Blood,” “Commandments,” and “Love.” Although some answers might belong in both columns, deal out the answers to everyone in the class. Then, ask them to put their assigned answer in one of the two columns (or straddling the line) and explain why they chose that position.
5. Choose key words from the passage and put them on separate cards or sheets of paper. Tell the class that you’re going to play “word association” and that they are to say whatever word comes into their heads when you read one of the words. You aren’t looking for a right answer, but you should use their answers to show how they key word relates to the text and, if possible, how it MIGHT relate to what a given person thought of when the word was read. I would shuffle the words and read them out and random, but put them lined up in order on the table as they appear in the scripture text.
Obviously, these ideas don’t work for every lesson, but they could be good introductory activities for
some of the passages you will be studying.
1. At the workshop, I suggested using “open-ended” questions rather than questions with a specific right or wrong answer. For example, rather than asking how many days and nights Noah and his family spent in the ark, maybe a question like, “How bad do you think the ‘cabin fever’ was in the ark?” or “How long do you think the family was in the ark before the first argument took place?” The number of days (though one can calculate them from the Bible) is a factoid; the thought questions suggested above try
to help students identify with realities we have in common with those characters.
I also suggested that rather than just asking people to speak up, have them write what they think on a sheet of paper, have everyone fold their papers identically, have everyone turn the papers in, shuffle the papers, and then, read the responses aloud and ask the class to comment on them. Even if they don’t comment aloud, they have already participated by writing their answers down.
2. This technique shouldn’t be used every week because it would lose its impact AND it requires extra floor space to do. For this, you should prepare labels for each of four corners in your room. I suggest that the four labels can be: “Agree, Mostly Agree, Disagree, and Mostly Disagree.” Explain to the class that they will be voting on some statements where the answer is not necessarily right or wrong. They will vote with their feet by going to the corner that fits their response. Then, you can get them to vote on a statement like: “Baptism is an important first step in demonstrating our faith” or “The New Jerusalem is only part of the New Heaven and Earth promised in Revelation.” After everyone is somewhere, remind them that there is no totally right or wrong answer (though the second example here is mostly true) and ask some from each group to explain why they chose that answer.
3. Choose key verses from the text you are studying. Assign each person in the class to write a paraphrase (rewriting the verse in their own words to try to make it simpler to understand) of a verse. It is a good idea to assign them their verse secretly so that you can just assemble their papers and read the verses aloud to start the discussion. Optionally, you could ask for volunteers to read their verses, but that probably won’t work in a class full of shy people.
4. Put a big sheet of butcher paper or poster board on the table, divided into two columns (Maybe Old Covenant / New Covenant or Faith / Unbelief). Pre-cut identical pieces of paper or construction paper (or use 3x5 index cards) and write possible answers. For Old Covenant/New Covenant, you might write the following answers: “Sacrifices,” “Law,” “Passover,” “Lord’s Supper,” “Grace,” “Baptism,” “Blood,” “Commandments,” and “Love.” Although some answers might belong in both columns, deal out the answers to everyone in the class. Then, ask them to put their assigned answer in one of the two columns (or straddling the line) and explain why they chose that position.
5. Choose key words from the passage and put them on separate cards or sheets of paper. Tell the class that you’re going to play “word association” and that they are to say whatever word comes into their heads when you read one of the words. You aren’t looking for a right answer, but you should use their answers to show how they key word relates to the text and, if possible, how it MIGHT relate to what a given person thought of when the word was read. I would shuffle the words and read them out and random, but put them lined up in order on the table as they appear in the scripture text.
Obviously, these ideas don’t work for every lesson, but they could be good introductory activities for
some of the passages you will be studying.
9/18/2021
生命可貴？
黃家慶
這篇文章本來預備放在六月份的季刊，但因六月份只有Johnny牧師和我寫的文章，所以延遲到現在才刊登。
在5/19/2021 英國廣播電台聽到幾則新聞，令我想起生命可貴的問題。
第一則是俄羅斯二戰戰勝德國的76周年紀念日的慶典中，Putin總統提到俄國在二戰中軍民死亡人數約2千7百萬，但他們的軍隊最終得勝，現在他們是軍事強國，一定會保護自己的權益。相比之下美國在二戰中的損失是很少的，因為是地利的原故，有太平洋及大西洋的保護，本土沒有像歐亞非各國的戰爭影響。或許是這樣美國人對生命看得更珍貴吧！
另一則新聞是中國的長征五號火箭在將太空站的一部份送上太空一星期之後昨天跌回地球，原本的重量約19 tons, 大部分在大氣層中燒掉了，其餘碎片落在印度洋。中國政府説這是正常的程序，人命損失的機率非常小，但美國及其他國家卻説這是不負責任的行為，因為雖然以前他們也是這樣做，但近年就已經不再這樣，一定要保證不會沒有控制的太空物體重返地球的情況。大家都同意人命損失的機率很低，但值得花更多的時間心力錢財去保障人民安全嗎？
當然最近最大的新聞就是印度的疫情嚴重程度，每日疫症及死亡人數都破世界紀錄，報導的疫症連續兩天每日超過四十萬，死亡人數也是連續兩天每天超過四千，大多數人都相信這些數字都不準確，真實情況肯定超過多倍，而且還是會惡化。很多其他國家也是這樣，因為經濟醫療資源缺乏。相比之下美國已經有超過一半以上的人接種疫苗，疫情已改善，但是還是有人不要接種，還是有人不帶口罩，不相信疫症的嚴重性⋯⋯。前總統告訴人民新冠疫症不嚴重，只像普通感冒，後來説他只是不想人民太恐慌，所以不説實話。他自己得病之後花了很多錢及資源恢復健康之後，告訴人們不要怕，要戰勝疫症。但因為大多數人看到他的問題，以致他大選失敗。他唯一的功勞是大力支持疫苗的研發。他自己也偷偷的接種疫苗。但跟隨擁戴他的人很多不知道他也接種了，約一半還是不想接種，另外約有百分之四十的白人“福音派”人士也不接種。相比之下，醫生百分九十以上都已經接種疫苗，因為我們每天都看到疫症的嚴重性，也知道科學研究的結果。雖然還有一些不知道的，科學研究永遠是不完全的，我們只可以按我們所知的去作決定。按現在所知道的，疫情肯定比一世紀前的世界流感疫情會更嚴重，死亡人數會更多，除非全球能同心合力應對。
生命究竟可貴嗎？這就要看是誰的生命！或是說是誰看誰的生命！
政治家怎樣看人民的生命！
白人警察怎麼看黑人的生命！
美國人怎樣看亞洲人的生命？
你怎樣看自己的生命？
家人朋友的生命？
其他族裔人士的生命？
神怎樣看所有人的生命？
基督徒應該怎樣看其他人的生命？
耶穌説：「人為朋友捨命，人的愛沒有比這大的！」主耶穌就是為了我們捨命，他也在他要被害之前對11個門徒（猶大已經離開他們去出賣耶穌）説：「我賜給你們一條新命令，乃是叫你們彼此相愛，我怎样愛你們，你們也要怎樣相愛。」（約13:14）這是超過舊的命令，「愛人如己」。我們怎樣呢？
黃家慶
這篇文章本來預備放在六月份的季刊，但因六月份只有Johnny牧師和我寫的文章，所以延遲到現在才刊登。
在5/19/2021 英國廣播電台聽到幾則新聞，令我想起生命可貴的問題。
第一則是俄羅斯二戰戰勝德國的76周年紀念日的慶典中，Putin總統提到俄國在二戰中軍民死亡人數約2千7百萬，但他們的軍隊最終得勝，現在他們是軍事強國，一定會保護自己的權益。相比之下美國在二戰中的損失是很少的，因為是地利的原故，有太平洋及大西洋的保護，本土沒有像歐亞非各國的戰爭影響。或許是這樣美國人對生命看得更珍貴吧！
另一則新聞是中國的長征五號火箭在將太空站的一部份送上太空一星期之後昨天跌回地球，原本的重量約19 tons, 大部分在大氣層中燒掉了，其餘碎片落在印度洋。中國政府説這是正常的程序，人命損失的機率非常小，但美國及其他國家卻説這是不負責任的行為，因為雖然以前他們也是這樣做，但近年就已經不再這樣，一定要保證不會沒有控制的太空物體重返地球的情況。大家都同意人命損失的機率很低，但值得花更多的時間心力錢財去保障人民安全嗎？
當然最近最大的新聞就是印度的疫情嚴重程度，每日疫症及死亡人數都破世界紀錄，報導的疫症連續兩天每日超過四十萬，死亡人數也是連續兩天每天超過四千，大多數人都相信這些數字都不準確，真實情況肯定超過多倍，而且還是會惡化。很多其他國家也是這樣，因為經濟醫療資源缺乏。相比之下美國已經有超過一半以上的人接種疫苗，疫情已改善，但是還是有人不要接種，還是有人不帶口罩，不相信疫症的嚴重性⋯⋯。前總統告訴人民新冠疫症不嚴重，只像普通感冒，後來説他只是不想人民太恐慌，所以不説實話。他自己得病之後花了很多錢及資源恢復健康之後，告訴人們不要怕，要戰勝疫症。但因為大多數人看到他的問題，以致他大選失敗。他唯一的功勞是大力支持疫苗的研發。他自己也偷偷的接種疫苗。但跟隨擁戴他的人很多不知道他也接種了，約一半還是不想接種，另外約有百分之四十的白人“福音派”人士也不接種。相比之下，醫生百分九十以上都已經接種疫苗，因為我們每天都看到疫症的嚴重性，也知道科學研究的結果。雖然還有一些不知道的，科學研究永遠是不完全的，我們只可以按我們所知的去作決定。按現在所知道的，疫情肯定比一世紀前的世界流感疫情會更嚴重，死亡人數會更多，除非全球能同心合力應對。
生命究竟可貴嗎？這就要看是誰的生命！或是說是誰看誰的生命！
政治家怎樣看人民的生命！
白人警察怎麼看黑人的生命！
美國人怎樣看亞洲人的生命？
你怎樣看自己的生命？
家人朋友的生命？
其他族裔人士的生命？
神怎樣看所有人的生命？
基督徒應該怎樣看其他人的生命？
耶穌説：「人為朋友捨命，人的愛沒有比這大的！」主耶穌就是為了我們捨命，他也在他要被害之前對11個門徒（猶大已經離開他們去出賣耶穌）説：「我賜給你們一條新命令，乃是叫你們彼此相愛，我怎样愛你們，你們也要怎樣相愛。」（約13:14）這是超過舊的命令，「愛人如己」。我們怎樣呢？
When Does Inerrancy Become “Bibliolatry?”
Pastor Johnny
At some point in both religious politics as well as secular politics, it becomes more important to say the right words than actually to be right. I remember a Bible-believing New Testament scholar in a situation where some student activists were trying to get him to state that he believed in the inerrancy (being without errors) of the Bible. “I believe,” he responded, “that the Bible is truth without error.” That wasn’t enough for them, they wanted him to use the term, “inerrant,” even though he had just defined it. “I believe,” he responded, “that the Bible is true in every area it claims for itself.” Then, he quoted from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 with its clear statement that the Bible was inspired by God for: teaching, rebuking, correcting, training for right living, and equipping for God’s service. But they wanted him to say that the Bible was a science book and a history book from a 20th century perspective. They weren’t happy with his answer.
Isn’t that ironic? They asked him about the Bible and he answered them directly from the Bible and they weren’t happy. The next generation wasn’t happy with my answer(s), either. They asked me if I believed the Bible was “inerrant.” I answered that the Bible is God-inspired in exactly the way God intended for it to be. I told them that I was so convinced in the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the inspiration, transmission, and preservation of the Bible that I didn’t even speak of “textual errors” when Greek or Hebrew manuscripts differed, I spoke of textual “differences.” I argued that God had allowed those differences to keep us humble in our presumptions concerning the text and to be sure we were more concerned about the message as a whole than minor (and most of the variants are minor) differences. It wasn’t enough for multiple reasons that I will share with you after a story.
Some years ago, I was visiting with a retired pastor. This pastor confessed to me that he felt he had placed the wrong emphasis on “inerrancy.” He explained that he had always believed the “missing brick” theory. He felt that if he allowed doubt to be cast on “one brick” of the Bible (a date, a number, a name, an author, etc.), his whole confidence in the Bible as God’s Word would fall apart. And then, he admitted, he realized that he had been so determined to keep all of the “bricks” in place that he had actually believed, through all of his ministry, that Samuel had written both 1 and 2 Samuel. He said that this was foolish and irresponsible because it suddenly hit him that a large percentage of those books take place after Samuel’s death and because the book nowhere states or implies that the books were written by Samuel.
I agreed with him and reminded him that the authority of the Bible doesn’t come from considerations such as whether Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (There are places where it says that he wrote down what the Lord gave him, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he wrote the entire five books as we have them today—including the account of his death) or if creation took seven (7) creative days (as in Genesis 1) or one (1) creative day (as in Genesis 2). The authority of the Bible comes from the fact that God-breathed it. God inspired it to give humanity what it needed, both when it was given and when we read it, study it, preach it, and teach it today. If something seems confusing or even seems to be wrong, it’s probably so that the Holy Spirit can get our attention. For some of us, it may be the only way we don’t take the scripture for granted and assume we know it all. We DON’T know it all. Because of our inherent sin problem, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to understand God’s HOLY Scripture properly.
We have to work at it with God’s help. Just because there are “holes” in our understanding of the Bible, doesn’t mean that there are “errors” in the Bible.
Pastor Johnny
At some point in both religious politics as well as secular politics, it becomes more important to say the right words than actually to be right. I remember a Bible-believing New Testament scholar in a situation where some student activists were trying to get him to state that he believed in the inerrancy (being without errors) of the Bible. “I believe,” he responded, “that the Bible is truth without error.” That wasn’t enough for them, they wanted him to use the term, “inerrant,” even though he had just defined it. “I believe,” he responded, “that the Bible is true in every area it claims for itself.” Then, he quoted from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 with its clear statement that the Bible was inspired by God for: teaching, rebuking, correcting, training for right living, and equipping for God’s service. But they wanted him to say that the Bible was a science book and a history book from a 20th century perspective. They weren’t happy with his answer.
Isn’t that ironic? They asked him about the Bible and he answered them directly from the Bible and they weren’t happy. The next generation wasn’t happy with my answer(s), either. They asked me if I believed the Bible was “inerrant.” I answered that the Bible is God-inspired in exactly the way God intended for it to be. I told them that I was so convinced in the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the inspiration, transmission, and preservation of the Bible that I didn’t even speak of “textual errors” when Greek or Hebrew manuscripts differed, I spoke of textual “differences.” I argued that God had allowed those differences to keep us humble in our presumptions concerning the text and to be sure we were more concerned about the message as a whole than minor (and most of the variants are minor) differences. It wasn’t enough for multiple reasons that I will share with you after a story.
Some years ago, I was visiting with a retired pastor. This pastor confessed to me that he felt he had placed the wrong emphasis on “inerrancy.” He explained that he had always believed the “missing brick” theory. He felt that if he allowed doubt to be cast on “one brick” of the Bible (a date, a number, a name, an author, etc.), his whole confidence in the Bible as God’s Word would fall apart. And then, he admitted, he realized that he had been so determined to keep all of the “bricks” in place that he had actually believed, through all of his ministry, that Samuel had written both 1 and 2 Samuel. He said that this was foolish and irresponsible because it suddenly hit him that a large percentage of those books take place after Samuel’s death and because the book nowhere states or implies that the books were written by Samuel.
I agreed with him and reminded him that the authority of the Bible doesn’t come from considerations such as whether Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (There are places where it says that he wrote down what the Lord gave him, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he wrote the entire five books as we have them today—including the account of his death) or if creation took seven (7) creative days (as in Genesis 1) or one (1) creative day (as in Genesis 2). The authority of the Bible comes from the fact that God-breathed it. God inspired it to give humanity what it needed, both when it was given and when we read it, study it, preach it, and teach it today. If something seems confusing or even seems to be wrong, it’s probably so that the Holy Spirit can get our attention. For some of us, it may be the only way we don’t take the scripture for granted and assume we know it all. We DON’T know it all. Because of our inherent sin problem, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to understand God’s HOLY Scripture properly.
We have to work at it with God’s help. Just because there are “holes” in our understanding of the Bible, doesn’t mean that there are “errors” in the Bible.
The truth is that brick walls can stand for quite a while with a brick missing. And the truth is that the Bible can stand on its own without you and I trying to prop it up and claim more than it claims for itself. God wants us to submit to the Bible, not to “correct” it or give our approval. It’s all there and it all points to God’s Truth. Finding that Truth requires an ongoing relationship with God. Unbelievers see problems; believers see opportunities to discover more about the richness of God.
So, what does it mean to so that “God-breathed” the Bible through the power of the Holy Spirit? Believers have had different understandings of “how” this “breath” might have filled the Scripture, but what do we know for sure? We DO know that in both Hebrew and Greek, the same word for “wind” can also mean “spirit” and “breath.” We also know that humanity came into being when God “breathed” into humanity the “breath of life.” So, to say that the Bible is “God-breathed” means that it is a LIVING message, intended to lead us to, guide us in, and safeguard LIFE. Whenever we quit asking God to help us find the LIFE in the Bible, we’re not using it for what it’s supposed to be used for.
As for how God “breathed” LIFE into God’s Word, our human understanding can speculate multiple ways. A former leader in a very conservative denomination simply said that some people believed in VERBAL inspiration and some people believed in THOUGHT inspiration. “The verbal inspiration group insists that God inspired every word and that the writer was merely a stenographer. The thought inspiration school holds that God inspired the ideas but that the writer expressed them in his own words. By whatever method used, the Holy Spirit guarded the authors from error as they wrote what God wanted them to say.” (Herschel H. Hobbs, Fundamentals of our Faith, p. 2)
Some people feel that if God let the writers be too creative, they would introduce errors into the text. I will demonstrate their error from the Bible in a minute, BUT let’s hear them out for a moment. They weren’t totally sold on the word-by-word inspiration, but they didn’t want to leave a hole in their “brick wall” of understanding the Bible, either. So, they divided the idea of VERBAL inspiration into: 1) VERBAL DICTATION theory and 2) VERBAL PLENARY theory.
At first, #1 sounds pretty good and seems to avoid problems. If we understand the following verses to apply to God dictating the Scripture, it seems to fit. “Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said…” (Exodus 24:4 NIV) But what was this? Everything from Genesis 1:1 to Exodus 24:4? Everything from Genesis through Deuteronomy? Actually, the Bible makes it clear in the verses just before that. Moses wrote down all of the information about the covenant and the laws he had just spoken to Israel so that they wouldn’t forget it. God might have dictated word-for-word, but it sounds like God gave Moses the essentials of the covenant and that, after Moses shared verbally what he had experienced in God’s presence, the people said, “Could you write that down for us?”
It’s a lot like when a person is affected by a sermon that God gave me and they ask, “Could I have your notes?” [NOTE: I am NOT claiming that my sermon notes are or ever could be Scripture; they are only as valuable as where they open up the Scripture through the Holy Spirit.] But, continuing this imperfect example, my sermon notes are NEVER going to be as complete as what God has shown me in the Scripture. Those notes would be intended to lead people into a deeper dialogue with God through His Word. The Holy Spirit helped Moses remember everything that was essential to the initial covenant and the law, but Moses had to communicate in human writing what he had experienced in God’s presence on the mountain. God didn’t have to dictate word-for-word to guide Moses in remembering the essentials.
Another verse that is often used to support the VERBAL DICTATION theory is Jeremiah 1:9 (NIV): “Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, ‘Now, I have put my words in your mouth.’” Seems perfect, right? Yet, these very words put in Jeremiah’s mouth are said to be “the words of Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah” in Jeremiah 1:1. And, how does God give these “words” to Jeremiah? God asks him what he “sees” in both verse 11 with the almond rod and in verse 13 with the boiling over pot. God uses what Jeremiah experiences (under the leading of the Holy Spirit) to shape the message. Why wouldn’t God do so elsewhere?
Of course, the holders of VERBAL DICTATION theory don’t give up that easily. They look at Jeremiah 30:2 where God tells Jeremiah to write in a book all the “words” (which can also mean “messages,” by the way) that God had told him. Wouldn’t that be evidence of dictation? Maybe, but to me it seems very strange that if God was just talking about words dictated to Jeremiah that Jeremiah would, in turn, dictate to Baruch as in Jeremiah 36:4. The same thing would seem to be true with the Apostle Paul. If God dictated to him, why is he writing about being torn being living and dying in Philippians 1:23? Why is it apparently his habit to use a “secretary” since it is unusual for him to write in his own hand (Galatians 6:11)? Why does he write in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that he is writing from himself rather than having a specific word from the Lord?
For these reasons and others, I don’t believe VERBAL DICTATION theory is consistent with the testimony of the Bible. So, many Bible-believers change this to what they call the VERBAL PLENARY theory of inspiration. “Plenary” means everything or “all.” It is like when you go to a conference or seminar and you see a “Plenary Session” on the schedule (usually, the keynote address is a “plenary” session) that means everyone in attendance is expected to be at that session.
VERBAL PLENARY theory means that everything is inspired: “…theologically, historically, chronologically, geographically, or scientifically.” (James T. Draper, Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists, p. 89) So, the authors are allowed to use their style and words, but everything else is correct. In that case, one wonders why 2 Samuel 24 has a result of a census that adds up to 1.3 million men for military service and 1 Chronicles 21 has only 1.1 million men available for military service from the same census? Apparently, God wants us to see something more than mere numbers. In fact, why does 2 Samuel tell us that God Himself tempted King David to do this where 1 Chronicles says that Satan tempted King David? Apparently, God wants us to see that God uses even our enemy, Satan, as an instrument to challenge God’s people (1 Chronicles 21) while, ultimately, temptation means that God is giving us an opportunity to succeed or fail (2 Samuel 24). But, if we are going to apply historical, chronological, geographical, and scientific standards of the modern era to the biblical accounts, we’ll have to deal with a certain amount of dissonance.
So, it is that I share with you about DYNAMIC INSPIRATION. This theory doesn’t believe that the Bible will steer you wrong. BUT, it believes that (as John Calvin once suggested) God’s inspiration accommodated God’s Truth to human capacity. Scientifically, we might be tempted to say that the Bible is in error because it appears that the biblical writers believed the sun orbited the earth rather than the earth orbiting the sun (as per Genesis 1 where the lights are in earth’s heavens as opposed to earth being in the heavens and Joshua 10 where the sun seems to quit going around the earth). In DYNAMIC INSPIRATION, God inspired the writer of Genesis (who believed in a geocentric rather than a heliocentric solar system) to write the Genesis poetry which reminds us that God created everything we can see and God inspired the writer of Joshua 10 to share the account that God controls the time and elements. The sun doesn’t have to orbit the earth to make those two theological truths accurate.
To the writer of Genesis, the waters above and below the earth were literal waters, but modern humanity knows that while there ARE waters in the atmosphere and there ARE waters underground, there are NO waters ABOVE the atmosphere and there are NO waters in outer space “underneath” what would be the South Pole (even though there are waters under the South Pole itself). Of course, the fact that space is full of waves and gravitational pull, just like the oceans and seas that ancient humanity could observe might suggest that “waters above” and “waters below” are a terrific metaphor for outer space. When the Holy Spirit inspired Genesis, it was written in such a way that it made sense to ancient humanity. Yet, it is written in such a way that the right-minded modern individual can see how we would fit in a scientific view, as well.
The VERBAL PLENARY theorist believes that the DYNAMIC INSPIRATION theorist is non-biblical. They say that claiming the Holy Spirit inspired “metaphor” by means of the biblical writers is human arrogance. “The modern answer is that the Holy Spirit will guide us, but that is nothing more or less than existential philosophy.” (Draper, p. 92) To that I say, “Only if you DON’T trust the Holy Spirit.”
But how do we KNOW our interpretation is coming from the Holy Spirit’s leading? The answer may seem circular. The Holy Spirit’s interpretation will be consistent with the message of the whole Bible. What is the message of the whole Bible? God created and God is in charge such that despite humanity’s self-destructive tendencies (also known as SIN), God has intervened to make it possible for humanity to have life and relationship with God forever.
But you want to know the REAL irony? The REAL irony is that where I believe that the ENTIRE Bible is God’s inspired message to humankind, I am only aware of TWO pastors of the Verbal Plenary persuasion who tried to preach the ENTIRE Bible. And even if they preached the “Song of Solomon,” they would only preach it as, get this, a metaphor for Christ and His Church. Well, okay, that metaphor can fit, but it is not the LITERAL interpretation of that book like they want the LITERAL interpretation of the Genesis 1 account or the LITERAL stopping of an orbit in Joshua 10. Even when they preach from Revelation, they preach it from a 21st century point of view and never consider what it LITERALLY would have meant to those seven churches of Asia.
The bottom line is that the Bible is “God-breathed.” God put the LIFE in it. But when we say HOW God “had” to do it, we are suffocating the Spirit with our pillow of human bias. We need to trust the Holy Spirit and, when there seems to be an error, let’s ask God what we need to see in the dissonance. Just maybe, God will help us to believe something important that we’ve missed.
In answer to the question with which I entitled this article, our idea of “inerrancy” becomes Bibliolatry (“idolatry”) when we worship our ideas about the Bible or refuse to let go of our preconceived notions about the Bible instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through the Bible. But how do we keep from making errors due to our human nature? We keep prayerfully submitting ourselves to the ENTIRE Bible and the consistent message throughout. The Bible is God’s message designed (“inspired”) to lead us to the Person of God and to live in a loving relationship with God.
So, what does it mean to so that “God-breathed” the Bible through the power of the Holy Spirit? Believers have had different understandings of “how” this “breath” might have filled the Scripture, but what do we know for sure? We DO know that in both Hebrew and Greek, the same word for “wind” can also mean “spirit” and “breath.” We also know that humanity came into being when God “breathed” into humanity the “breath of life.” So, to say that the Bible is “God-breathed” means that it is a LIVING message, intended to lead us to, guide us in, and safeguard LIFE. Whenever we quit asking God to help us find the LIFE in the Bible, we’re not using it for what it’s supposed to be used for.
As for how God “breathed” LIFE into God’s Word, our human understanding can speculate multiple ways. A former leader in a very conservative denomination simply said that some people believed in VERBAL inspiration and some people believed in THOUGHT inspiration. “The verbal inspiration group insists that God inspired every word and that the writer was merely a stenographer. The thought inspiration school holds that God inspired the ideas but that the writer expressed them in his own words. By whatever method used, the Holy Spirit guarded the authors from error as they wrote what God wanted them to say.” (Herschel H. Hobbs, Fundamentals of our Faith, p. 2)
Some people feel that if God let the writers be too creative, they would introduce errors into the text. I will demonstrate their error from the Bible in a minute, BUT let’s hear them out for a moment. They weren’t totally sold on the word-by-word inspiration, but they didn’t want to leave a hole in their “brick wall” of understanding the Bible, either. So, they divided the idea of VERBAL inspiration into: 1) VERBAL DICTATION theory and 2) VERBAL PLENARY theory.
At first, #1 sounds pretty good and seems to avoid problems. If we understand the following verses to apply to God dictating the Scripture, it seems to fit. “Moses then wrote down everything the Lord had said…” (Exodus 24:4 NIV) But what was this? Everything from Genesis 1:1 to Exodus 24:4? Everything from Genesis through Deuteronomy? Actually, the Bible makes it clear in the verses just before that. Moses wrote down all of the information about the covenant and the laws he had just spoken to Israel so that they wouldn’t forget it. God might have dictated word-for-word, but it sounds like God gave Moses the essentials of the covenant and that, after Moses shared verbally what he had experienced in God’s presence, the people said, “Could you write that down for us?”
It’s a lot like when a person is affected by a sermon that God gave me and they ask, “Could I have your notes?” [NOTE: I am NOT claiming that my sermon notes are or ever could be Scripture; they are only as valuable as where they open up the Scripture through the Holy Spirit.] But, continuing this imperfect example, my sermon notes are NEVER going to be as complete as what God has shown me in the Scripture. Those notes would be intended to lead people into a deeper dialogue with God through His Word. The Holy Spirit helped Moses remember everything that was essential to the initial covenant and the law, but Moses had to communicate in human writing what he had experienced in God’s presence on the mountain. God didn’t have to dictate word-for-word to guide Moses in remembering the essentials.
Another verse that is often used to support the VERBAL DICTATION theory is Jeremiah 1:9 (NIV): “Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, ‘Now, I have put my words in your mouth.’” Seems perfect, right? Yet, these very words put in Jeremiah’s mouth are said to be “the words of Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah” in Jeremiah 1:1. And, how does God give these “words” to Jeremiah? God asks him what he “sees” in both verse 11 with the almond rod and in verse 13 with the boiling over pot. God uses what Jeremiah experiences (under the leading of the Holy Spirit) to shape the message. Why wouldn’t God do so elsewhere?
Of course, the holders of VERBAL DICTATION theory don’t give up that easily. They look at Jeremiah 30:2 where God tells Jeremiah to write in a book all the “words” (which can also mean “messages,” by the way) that God had told him. Wouldn’t that be evidence of dictation? Maybe, but to me it seems very strange that if God was just talking about words dictated to Jeremiah that Jeremiah would, in turn, dictate to Baruch as in Jeremiah 36:4. The same thing would seem to be true with the Apostle Paul. If God dictated to him, why is he writing about being torn being living and dying in Philippians 1:23? Why is it apparently his habit to use a “secretary” since it is unusual for him to write in his own hand (Galatians 6:11)? Why does he write in 1 Corinthians 7:11 that he is writing from himself rather than having a specific word from the Lord?
For these reasons and others, I don’t believe VERBAL DICTATION theory is consistent with the testimony of the Bible. So, many Bible-believers change this to what they call the VERBAL PLENARY theory of inspiration. “Plenary” means everything or “all.” It is like when you go to a conference or seminar and you see a “Plenary Session” on the schedule (usually, the keynote address is a “plenary” session) that means everyone in attendance is expected to be at that session.
VERBAL PLENARY theory means that everything is inspired: “…theologically, historically, chronologically, geographically, or scientifically.” (James T. Draper, Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists, p. 89) So, the authors are allowed to use their style and words, but everything else is correct. In that case, one wonders why 2 Samuel 24 has a result of a census that adds up to 1.3 million men for military service and 1 Chronicles 21 has only 1.1 million men available for military service from the same census? Apparently, God wants us to see something more than mere numbers. In fact, why does 2 Samuel tell us that God Himself tempted King David to do this where 1 Chronicles says that Satan tempted King David? Apparently, God wants us to see that God uses even our enemy, Satan, as an instrument to challenge God’s people (1 Chronicles 21) while, ultimately, temptation means that God is giving us an opportunity to succeed or fail (2 Samuel 24). But, if we are going to apply historical, chronological, geographical, and scientific standards of the modern era to the biblical accounts, we’ll have to deal with a certain amount of dissonance.
So, it is that I share with you about DYNAMIC INSPIRATION. This theory doesn’t believe that the Bible will steer you wrong. BUT, it believes that (as John Calvin once suggested) God’s inspiration accommodated God’s Truth to human capacity. Scientifically, we might be tempted to say that the Bible is in error because it appears that the biblical writers believed the sun orbited the earth rather than the earth orbiting the sun (as per Genesis 1 where the lights are in earth’s heavens as opposed to earth being in the heavens and Joshua 10 where the sun seems to quit going around the earth). In DYNAMIC INSPIRATION, God inspired the writer of Genesis (who believed in a geocentric rather than a heliocentric solar system) to write the Genesis poetry which reminds us that God created everything we can see and God inspired the writer of Joshua 10 to share the account that God controls the time and elements. The sun doesn’t have to orbit the earth to make those two theological truths accurate.
To the writer of Genesis, the waters above and below the earth were literal waters, but modern humanity knows that while there ARE waters in the atmosphere and there ARE waters underground, there are NO waters ABOVE the atmosphere and there are NO waters in outer space “underneath” what would be the South Pole (even though there are waters under the South Pole itself). Of course, the fact that space is full of waves and gravitational pull, just like the oceans and seas that ancient humanity could observe might suggest that “waters above” and “waters below” are a terrific metaphor for outer space. When the Holy Spirit inspired Genesis, it was written in such a way that it made sense to ancient humanity. Yet, it is written in such a way that the right-minded modern individual can see how we would fit in a scientific view, as well.
The VERBAL PLENARY theorist believes that the DYNAMIC INSPIRATION theorist is non-biblical. They say that claiming the Holy Spirit inspired “metaphor” by means of the biblical writers is human arrogance. “The modern answer is that the Holy Spirit will guide us, but that is nothing more or less than existential philosophy.” (Draper, p. 92) To that I say, “Only if you DON’T trust the Holy Spirit.”
But how do we KNOW our interpretation is coming from the Holy Spirit’s leading? The answer may seem circular. The Holy Spirit’s interpretation will be consistent with the message of the whole Bible. What is the message of the whole Bible? God created and God is in charge such that despite humanity’s self-destructive tendencies (also known as SIN), God has intervened to make it possible for humanity to have life and relationship with God forever.
But you want to know the REAL irony? The REAL irony is that where I believe that the ENTIRE Bible is God’s inspired message to humankind, I am only aware of TWO pastors of the Verbal Plenary persuasion who tried to preach the ENTIRE Bible. And even if they preached the “Song of Solomon,” they would only preach it as, get this, a metaphor for Christ and His Church. Well, okay, that metaphor can fit, but it is not the LITERAL interpretation of that book like they want the LITERAL interpretation of the Genesis 1 account or the LITERAL stopping of an orbit in Joshua 10. Even when they preach from Revelation, they preach it from a 21st century point of view and never consider what it LITERALLY would have meant to those seven churches of Asia.
The bottom line is that the Bible is “God-breathed.” God put the LIFE in it. But when we say HOW God “had” to do it, we are suffocating the Spirit with our pillow of human bias. We need to trust the Holy Spirit and, when there seems to be an error, let’s ask God what we need to see in the dissonance. Just maybe, God will help us to believe something important that we’ve missed.
In answer to the question with which I entitled this article, our idea of “inerrancy” becomes Bibliolatry (“idolatry”) when we worship our ideas about the Bible or refuse to let go of our preconceived notions about the Bible instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through the Bible. But how do we keep from making errors due to our human nature? We keep prayerfully submitting ourselves to the ENTIRE Bible and the consistent message throughout. The Bible is God’s message designed (“inspired”) to lead us to the Person of God and to live in a loving relationship with God.