We love Easter at Flooding Creek and would love for you to join us.
On Good Friday we have a fun-filled morning planned at the Brennan Park, on the corner of Desailly St and Stawell St. There’ll be hot cross buns and lots of fun for the whole family. We’ll talk about the significance of Easter in a family-friendly format. Everyone is welcome. Come along and have a great time. The start time is 10am.
On Easter Sunday we’ll hold a family-friendly church service at Guthridge Primary School Hall. We’ll start at 10am, and will include an Easter egg hunt and lunch will be provided for those that want to hang around. We’ll look at the most dangerous idea in human history. Everyone is welcome and we’d love to see you there.
If you like Hayden’s story, then check out Life. We’ll be running Life again at Tall Poppy Cafe on Thursday nights at 7:30pm starting 16th April. For only $2 for coffee and dessert what better way could you spend your Thursday nights?
The results from this year’s survey are in! We had over 200 people respond to the following two questions:
1. If you could ask God one question, it would be:
The top 5 answers were:
33% Why is there so much pain and suffering?
18% What happens after I die?
10% What is the meaning of life?
6% Aren’t all religions the same?
6% What does God want with me?
2. I believe that God exists
Strongly agree 20%
I don’t know 35%
Strongly disagree 11%
No response 1%
What do we learn from this? We learn that people in Sale ask deep questions. Even though some people asked questions like, ‘Can I have a million dollars?’ most people were thoughtful and even deep in their thinking. There is also a much stronger tendency to believe in God than disbelieve, with a large number of people in town confused about God.
The Bible claims to be God’s word, so we’d like to spend the next two weeks digging into the Bible to find answers to the two most popular questions. So join us over the next two Sundays for:
22 Feb Why is there so much pain and suffering? (Listen to the talk here)
1 Mar What happens after I die?
Sunday 15 February is our Public Launch. We think we’ve got something special. So we’re throwing a party, and you’re invited. A jumping castle, face-painting, sausage sizzle and more. We’ll even have cake. And everything is free. Come. Live a little. You’ll be glad you did.
Every year at Flooding Creek we run a Survey to hear what people have to say. This year it’s a question for God. We’ll announce the results on our webpage and also at our Public Launch, on 15 Feb. The next two Sundays we’ll attempt to answer the two most popular questions. Why not give it a go now?
Sounds like a funny thing to say, doesn’t it? What does it mean? No presents without chocolate? No Santa without the Easter Bunny? Some rallying cry to protect public holidays? No, it’s about what Christmas teaches us. You see, Jesus was not born because God wanted a tourist trip to earth. He didn’t come primarily to teach or to inspire, he came to save. What was it that the angel announced to the Shepherds on that very first Christmas?
“Today in the town of David a Saviourhas been born to you; he is the Messiah,the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)
He calls Jesus a saviour. To save us from what? Jesus told us himself:
“Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” (John 8:34)
Jesus came to save us from our sin. You may not have noticed this Christmas, but our Christmas carols are filled with this message. Take for example the first verse of ‘God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen’:
God rest ye merry, gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan’s power
When we were gone astray
Apparently ‘God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen’ is one of the oldest carols, dating as far back as the fifteenth century. But even back then they couldn’t help but notice the purpose for Jesus’ birth. It was ‘To save us all from Satan’s power’. When we sin we enslave ourselves to Satan. It sounds whacky and old school, but this is the clear teaching of Scripture. Jesus makes the link himself when he is talking to his Jewish hearers. They claim they ‘have never been slaves of anyone.’ (John 8:33). But Jesus tells them, ‘You belong to your father, the devil,and you want to carry out your father’s desires.’ (John 8:44). The good news of Christmas, though, is that Jesus has come to rescue us from our slavery to sin and the devil. That’s exactly what he achieves on the cross. As the angel announces in the fourth verse of ‘God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen’:
“Fear not then,” said the Angel,
“Let nothing you affright,
This day is born a Saviour
Of a pure Virgin bright,
To free all those who trust in Him
From Satan’s power and might.”
How does Jesus do this? On the cross. His death rescues all who trust in him, just as the Christmas carol says. That is, Jesus came to earth (Christmas) in order to die and rise again (Easter) to save us from our sins. So this Christmas, as you sing the carols, listen to the words. They’re filled with wonderful truth that has been sung in different ways for thousands of years. Perhaps even this Christmas you will find the freedom from slavery that only Jesus offers.
Exodus: Gods and kings hits the cinemas this Thursday 4th December. As Ridley Scott’s most expensive film to date it’s a big budget blockbuster production. In the movie we’re told the story of Moses and Pharaoh, raised as brothers but with very different destinies. If you’re a cinema goer you might like to get along to the Sale cinemas this weekend for the big screen experience. And if you enjoy the movie then join us this Sunday to take a look at the real Exodus story, 3pm at Guthridge Primary School hall.
Missed this opportunity? Why not listen to the talk over here.
A farmer once had a watermelon plant that was always being raided by local kids. One day he decided to do something about it, and put a sign beside the plant: “1 watermelon poisoned’. He went to bed that night feeling particularly clever. When he woke up the next day, the sign had been changed. It now read: ‘2 watermelons poisoned’. Sometimes our solutions can be too clever by far.
Christians hold that Christianity is grounded in evidence. They claim that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the basis for Christianity. People may become Christians for many different reasons, but Christians agree that Christianity is based on evidence.
Not so Elisabeth Cornwell. Cornwell claims that all religion can be explained through evolutionary processes. Though Christians think they believe what they believe based on evidence, Cornwell points to evolution as the cause. On Richard Dawkins’ website she outlines her proposed explanation for the rise of religion. Quoting from many of Dakins’ books, Cornwell suggests that small adaptions over a long period of time put in place the building blocks of primitive religion, such as language, tool-making, purpose and kinship. Though today those who hold to Christianity think they do so in a reasonable manner, based on evidence, the actual fact is that they have fallen for an evolutionary throwback in their brain that needs to be outgrown. In other words, though they think they hold something true based on evidence, what is actually believed can be explained purely by evolutionary theory, and is in fact false.
This seems like such a stroke of genius that one could hardly disagree, surely? We must abandon these beliefs because they can be explained by evolutionary process. But here comes the rub. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The exact same argument could be made against atheism. Atheists believe that they hold things to be true based on evidence. One could construct an evolutionary account of the rise of atheistic thought. If Christianity can be dismissed on account of an evolutionary past, so can atheism, as can science, relationships, literature and every form of human thought. It’s a poisoned watermelon, a cancer to knowledge that, once released, unstoppably undermines everything we hold to be true. Far from being clever, it’s intellectual suicide.
One can understand the atheist desire to write off religion as an evolutionary throwback. It is a near-universal of human experience. But it would be far wiser for the atheist to listen to the Christian than invent evolutionary tales that undermine all human thought.
There has been for some time now a raging debate about gender inclusive language in the NIV 2011. The Centre for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), in particular, have mounted a sustained attack against the NIV 2011. You can read a short version of their critique here: CBMW Let me say upfront that I am a complimentarian and have benefited from the ministry of CBMW. While a focus on specific key texts shows some legitimate concerns with a few verses, CBMW has a broader issue with the NIV11:
The NIV 2011’s aversion to generic masculine forms of expression is unnecessary and can have the deleterious effect of obscuring aspects of the biblical authors’ meaning. In my view, this feature alone weighs heavily against the NIV 2011.
The question I want to ask in this blog is, should our Bibles have an ‘aversion to generic masculine forms’? The key aim of translation is to render the original message into the current language of the reader. Keeping as much of the original wording as possible can help in accurately conveying that message, but this is just not possible when moving from one language to another. This is especially so with languages as different as Hebrew, Greek and English. For example, one Greek word means to be born, made, performed, happen, develop, become something, move, prove to be, be there, belong to and be in. What English word covers all that? No translation, therefore, will ever be perfect, because where it may gain from consistently using the same word in different contexts, it will lose from not choosing the best word for each context. We will always need different translations, each with a different focus (word for word, meaning for meaning) in order to best grasp the meaning of the original.
One reality every translator must face, however, is that language changes over time. This is certainly true for English. There was a time when ‘this is a problem for men’ could have meant every person, male or female. In English today, however, this phrase strictly addresses only male adults. Words have changed their meaning. If we are going to translate the Bible into modern English we will need to take this into account. Despite CBMW’s preference for generic masculine forms, there are some Greek words that imply both genders. One of these is ‘anthropos’. Although anthropos has traditionally been translated as man or men, it does not imply masculinity. Unless the context requires it, it is not a gender specific word. It is best translated person or people, unless the context requires otherwise. Yet the CBMW preferred translations (NASB, ESV) regularly translate the word as either man or men. In fact, on 341 occasions the ESV translates it as man or men. The ESV only translates anthropos as person or people on 94 occasions. The ESV has a clear preference for generic masculine forms. This can be seen in the following examples:
ESV Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
NIV Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.
The use of man here is an archaic usage. There is nothing masculine in this context that requires it to be translated man.
ESV For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
NIV Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Again this is an archaic usage. Is it only one male or all males that Paul might be trying to please? The NIV makes a sensible translation, using human beings in contrast to God, and then people in contrast to Christ.
ESV And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
NIV “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”
I think this verse highlights some of the weaknesses and frustrations of the ESV. First the gender issue – were they only going to be fishers of male adults? That’s certainly the way it sounds to modern ears. What is a fisher, anyway? According to the Oxford online dictionary it’s a large brown marten (whatever that is). It also has an archaic entry: fisherman. We actually have to translate this verse of the ESV into modern English!
ESV For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
NIV The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Is it only men whom God is angry with? Are women off the hook? What in this context requires the use of ‘men’?
ESV Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-
NIV Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
Perhaps women are off the hook because it’s only men who have sinned? There is no need for masculine gender to be used in this context, in fact it’s deeply unhelpful, even problematic. Yet, the CBMW takes no issue with their preferred translations at this point, but prefers ‘generic masculine forms of expression’, even if they distort the text to the ears of the modern reader.
How is it that the CBMW is worried only about distortions of the text that may reduce the strength of male headship in the Bible, but not concerned about unnecessary offence caused to women or the multitude of distortions to the text caused by a preference for generic masculine forms? It’s right and proper to pull up the NIV (and any other translation) for incorrect translations of particular verses, but it’s wholly out of step with the current use of the English language to evaluate a translation on the basis of gender-neutral forms. Quite simply, the ESV on many occasions has to be translated into modern English before it can be understood, even though it was translated just 13 years ago.
A major drawback for the regular public reading in church of the ESV and NASB is their higher reading levels. The ESV and NASB both have a reading level of grade 10 and 11 respectively. The NIV, on the other hand, only requires a reading level of grade 8. This may not be such a big deal if our churches are filled with university graduates, but given that only 23% of Australians have a bachelor’s degree or above, and given the widespread turn away from books and reading in our culture, the vast majority of Australians will struggle to hear and understand God’s word when we read it to them from the ESV or NASB.
So, what are we to make, then, of the gender inclusive language debate? First, let’s acknowledge that no one translation is perfect or even adequate for detailed study. Any Christian serious about understanding the Bible will reference more than one English translation. We train church pastors in Greek and Hebrew so that they can get behind even the English translations to the original languages. Second, any modern English translation will use the conventions of modern English, which will mean in our day and age the use of gender inclusive language unless context suggests otherwise. To do any different is not to render a modern English translation. Third, other factors beyond just gender inclusivity need to be taken into account when selecting a translation, including the required reading level. Unless our churches are going to be elitist institutions, generating dependence upon the paid staff for Bible interpretation and understanding, we had better publicly use a Bible that everyone understands, even those who aren’t confident readers. For this reason Flooding Creek has used the NIV 2011 for the last year, and although it has been less than perfect, it has served us well. We were tempted to dabble with the HCSB, however the lack of availability and popularity, especially in country areas, were factors that played against it in the end.