Purple Post

I am board president for a Charter school in urban Kansas City. My friend Stan Archie just got confirmed by the senate after being appointed by the Governor to the state school board.

We readily recognize the saying that it takes a village to raise a child, but in reality it takes a church. In a human sense it takes a healthy clan to have healthy children; in our community it takes healthy churches to raise healthy children. Yet sadly and sinfully, the village is sick and a sick generation has been produced.

In the book, The Miner’s Canary, two law school professors propose that when miners prepare to go down a shaft, they take two or three caged canaries and lower them into the mine first. The metabolism of the canary is so high it serves as early warning of a poisonous atmosphere. The canary may be inconsequential, incidental, or on the margins of the miner’s job, but if that canary dies it means there are lethal fumes building-up in the mine. Since you're not feeling me like I need you to, let me give you

AN EXPERIENTIAL EXEGESIS OF THE MINER’S CANARY

I can extrapolate from the experience of the canary to explain what is wrong in our mine.

1. Our children are high metabolism; that means they need high nurturing, high nourishment, high attention and high direction
Too many children die without a chance because they are stuck in poisonous atmospheres. They never experience the joy, challenge and expectation of growing up, because they are victims of selfish parental aspirations.
2. Our children are on the margins of meaningfulness, but while they are incidental to us they are critical to our future
Children are vulnerable in a world system that conspires against them. Satan is out to abort them, and that starts with the parents, the churches, the coaches, and the community.
3. It is our children that have the most to tell us about what is happening to our community
The canary was the loser, and yet it is the losers, the lost, and the left behind that tell us the most about how we are doing as churches. That is why Jesus spent time with two groups of people: the fallen and the poor. It is the people on the margins that show us where God is. If we can tap their experience, we can discover something about the atmosphere of the mine. But let me break a little off for you to show you how we are.
4. Many times we make the mistake of blaming the canary
Unfortunately, American society takes the attitude that we don’t need to learn from the losers—we blame the losers. We either feel sorry for them, or we pathologize them and say, Why is this canary not singing? Why is the canary failing this grade? Why is the canary sagging and bagging? We ask what’s wrong with the canary instead of correcting the atmosphere. So
5. We try to fix our children instead of changing the toxic environment
If you think the canary’s distress is caused by the canary, then you will outfit the canary with a child-sized gas mask so he can continue to grow up in a poisonous mine. The question we need to be raising is how we can stop making the canary sick. We need to read and heed the signal from the canary to fix the atmosphere in our homes and our churches, and let it spread to our community.

For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you. (Exodus 12:23)

Increasing Your Canary Consciousness #1. Protection only comes to our children when the adults understand the discipline of following directions.

There was an organization to liberation. There was an authority, an order, and orders. Moses told the elders (the authority) to go back to the homes (the social order) and anoint them with blood (the orders). Authority: Moses receives instructions from God. Order: the instructions received are given to the elders to pass on to the homes. Orders: apply that blood for yourself. So the houses that are spared are the households that are obedient to the orders because they respect the order and the authority.

You now see what’s wrong with our canaries. Our canaries are growing up in homes with no order and no respect for authority, because the homes are not obedient to God’s orders.

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. (Exodus 12:29)

Increasing Your Canary Consciousness #2. When the adults understand the discipline of following directions, then from the same darkness will come different consequences.

The destroyer came at night. Midnight comes to all of us. Though you have the same night, if you are covered, God will bless you with different consequences and outcomes.

And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised (Exodus 12:25)

Increasing Your Canary Consciousness #3. Instill children with a sense of the possibilities before them in the face of impossibilities around them.

God didn’t say “if ye be come to the land." He is talking to people that have known nothing but 430 years of slavery. He is talking to generations who have known nothing but hard bondage. Yet now he says, When! So instill a sense of possibility in the face of impossibility.

Give children a sense of their possibilities in Christ. It won’t matter what home they come from or what side of the tracks they live on. We have to plant the seeds in each child of a dream that is greater than the situation they are raised in.

And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? (Exodus 12:26)

Our children are going to ask, so we need to know. Children are going to have questions, so we need to give them the right answers. Since they are going to ask, you better know, and you better rehearse what God has done. This is my purple post.

At the last board meeting I learned that our charter school was the only one in the entire state to make AYP (Average Yearly Progress, a benchmark set by the NCLB—No Child Left Behind Act) each of the last four years in a row. A lot of suburban districts don't make it. And our school is 440 K-8 students who are 65% African American, 24% Hispanic, and over 80% free or subsidized lunches (a barometer of poverty).

"I'll be working my way back to you, babe

. . . with a burning love inside" (The Spinners, Love Trippin', #2 March, 1980).


I come from a very King James Bible background. You know, if it was good enough for Paul . . . So now that I am grown up and educated, I have a confession to make. I almost did it. I almost traded in my Oxford wide margin for one of the modern versions.

Hey, I'm working my way back to you, babe
And the happiness that died
I let it get away (Do, do, do, do, do)
(Been paying every day) Do, do, do, do, do

After all, it seems to me like the tradeoff is between readability and accuracy. Take my NIV for instance (please, take my NIV). The philosophy of translation followed is not word-for-word. It's called a “dynamically equivalent” translation, That means it's more thought-for-thought. They are more concerned that the ideas get across than they are that the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages are translated literally.

When you were so in love with me
I played around like I was free
Thought I could have my cake and eat it too
But how I cried over losing you

Problem is, it is eminently readable; it's just not accurate. Let me give you a great example from the book we've been conversing about: Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. Out of 2 Cor 11:23 he selectively isolates not just one verse, but only a phrase out of that verse. In the process of boasting of his sufferings (for the benefit of his Corinthian readers)(1), Paul admits that in defending his apostleship this way, "I speak as a fool" [KJV], or "I am talking like a madman" [ESV]. Bell provides the NIV translation and says that Paul is saying "I am out of my mind to talk like this," just so he can then ask the question, "So is it [Paul's] word or God's word? Is God out of his mind? Is God out of Paul's mind? Is Paul out of God's mind? Or does it simply mean that Paul is out of Paul's mind?"(2)

See I'm down and out
But I ain't about to go living my life without you
Hey, every day I made you cry
I'll pay in, girl, till the day I die

So Robbie takes an inaccurate translation in order to instill doubt. Sorry, but that's what he's pretty good at. This is repainting the Bible through the unflattering color of dishonest exegesis. But wait, or you'll be getting mad too soon. Bell immediately quotes the NIV translation of 1 Cor 7:12: "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) . . . ." Then he asks, "So when a writer of the Bible makes it clear that what he is writing comes straight from him, how is that still the word of God?"(3) We think Bell knows exactly what he is doing here; and we think we know why he uses the NIV to do it. Paul is simply being clear to the Corinthians that Jesus did not deal with the issue of a believing husband having an unbelieving wife, but that Paul himself was taking up this topic (cf. 7:10). Yet it is clear from verse 40 that even though this was coming "straight from Paul," he considers it to be authoritative writing(4) given under inspiration.(5)

Oh, I used to love to make you cry
It made me feel like a man inside
If I had been a man in reality
You'd be here, baby, loving me

Elvis notwithstanding, I was still about to chuck my KJV for a * * V (or is that a - - -V?). Then I started reading the latest issue of the Westminster Theological Journal. I figure, if House keeps up on his medical journals, I don't want to look like a Scrub, and since I deal with so many problems in the ER, I better keep up with "the literature."(6) Be professional and all that. And do you know what I found? S. M. Baugh wrote an amazing article on "The Cloud of Witnesses in Hebrews 11" (pp 113-132). He discusses the favorite "life verse" of many of us: Heb 11:1, and how we have been led into a common (mis)interpretation by "highly questionable traditional renderings of key terms . . . which continue on in newer English versions despite well-founded objections in lexical and scholarly authorities." You see, where the KJV translates objectively and concretely that faith is "substance" and "evidence," all modern translations render the Greek subjectively as "faith is being sure . . . and certain" (NIV) or having "assurance" and "conviction" (ESV), "faith is the confidence . . . it gives us assurance" (NLT). Since "the universal scholarly conclusion from lexical studies" is that this is incorrect, Baugh comments that "it is therefore puzzling that newer English versions" translate it this way. Indeed (get this), "the proper rendering of Heb 11:1 was given long ago in the KJV."

Now my nights are long and lonely
And I ain't too proud, babe, I just miss you so
Girl, but you're too proud and you won't give in
But when I think about all I could win

So here's what I discovered. The first complete English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe in 1380. But printing hadn't been invented yet, so each copy was its own handwritten manuscript. Wycliffe did not know Hebrew or Greek, so he translated from the common clerical version of the day: the Latin Vulgate. Not the ideal thing, but

I'll keep working my way back to you, babe
With a burning love inside
Yeah, I'm working my way back to you, babe
And the happiness that died
I let it get away (Do, do, do, do, do)
(Been paying every day) Do, do, do, do, do

Then there were seven major printed revisions starting with William Tyndale's work in 1526. Because printing had now been invented, these translations were made from printed Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations
It started with Wycliffe's manuscript translation of the Vulgate. Then,
1. Tyndale
2. Coverdale's Bible, 1535
3. Matthew's Bible, 1537
4. Great Bible (Cranmer's Bible), 1539
5. Geneva Bible, 1560
6. Bishop's Bible, 1568
Six printed revisions. The seventh was the King James Bible in 1611. After that the process stopped for 270 years. Psalm 12:6 (as my friend Ken Hutcherson would say, “Ouch!”).

My road is kind of long
I just gotta get back home
Whoa, I'm really sorry for acting that way
I'm really sorry, oh, little girl for telling you lies for so long

It was a long road. All the way from the Vulgate to the AV, and in 1881 back again.(7) So now, it seems like modern translations are striving to be more literally accurate (like the ESV), and in doing so they are actually working their way back to the KJV.

Oh, please, forgive me, girl, come on (Give me a chance)
Won't you forgive me, girl, hey, (Let's have romance)
Ooh, forgive me, girl (Let's try again)
Come on, forgive me, girl, I want you over
And over and over and over and over again

So I say to my Oxford wide margin (Cambridge as well): I'm sorry I ever doubted you. I recognize now it was a "One of a Kind (Love Affair)" #11, June 1973. So I asked myself, "Could It Be I'm Falling In Love?" #4, 1972. Wow. I almost threw away my Bible. "Then Came You" #1, Oct 1974. I sort of feel like "The Rubberband Man" #2, 1976.


1. Barnett calls this Paul's "fool-speak" and states, "In the Fool's Speech proper Paul . . . 'boasts' of his 'weaknesses,' which is the 'foolishness' and 'madness' of Christ himself," Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 534.
2. Bell, 42.
3. Fee notes what is happening here: "Since such concerns lay outside the province of Jesus' own life-setting, Paul himself speaks to this matter, not the Lord." Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 298.
4. Barrett says in the Black's New Testament Commentary, "Paul distinguishes sharply his own judgment from a pronouncement traceable to Jesus, but this does not mean that he regards his charge here as having no authority, or even significantly less authority than that of verse 10." C.K Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 163.
5. According to Craig Keener, "Although Paul states his 'opinion' (NASB, TEV) much less strongly than he proclaims the words of Jesus (7:10-12), he does not for this reason think it any less authoritative. The Spirit was normally associated with the prophets of the past, and Paul here claims that he believes he writes under inspiration as a prophet would (cf. 14:37)." Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer's Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993), 573.
6. (In no particular order) Westminster Theological Journal, Trinity Seminary Journal, Themelios, JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society), Master's Seminary Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, Western Buddhist Review (just kidding)
http://www.dts.edu/media/bibliothecasacra/
http://www.tms.edu/journal.asp
http://www.tiu.edu/trinityjournal/
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/jets.html
http://www.uccf.org.uk/yourcourse/rtsf/themelios.php
There are many, many more out there, but I try to keep up with these right now.
7. After 1881 all the modern translations were based on critical eclectic texts that have, in many ways, gone back to readings found in the Vulgate of old (Greek manuscripts Aleph and B, A.K.A. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Actually it is not old readings so much as old “un-readings,” in that the modern text has more omissions and almost no additions.

Bobblehead Believers

At least the Bereans had an aristocracy attitude about themselves and their ability to interpret the Bible.

This is something I agree with N.T. Wright about, because I have seen it so often in academic settings. "One hears it said frequently that all reading of scripture is a matter of interpretation, with the implication that one person's interpretation is as good as another's. This is of course a variation on the classic postmodern position that there are no such things as texts, only interpretations, since when I read a text it 'becomes' something different from what it 'becomes' when you read it."1

The Bereans recognized there are a lot of interpretations being fed to Christians today. It's Hard Out Here for a Pastor, is what I say (apologies to Three 6 Mafia). But that doesn't mean that there's not only one right interpretation. And that doesn't mean that you cannot find it. The Bereans did (Acts 17:11) because they were in their Bible daily, comparing what was being said to them against what was found in the Bible. (Unfortunately, Wright, in the title referenced in note 1, does not know how to nail down Biblical authority to this simple process.)

Each generation of believers has to fight against relativism and for an understanding of revelation. Read that again, because you missed it, though the fact is nothing new. What gets me is that so many Christians today cannot think critically about what is presented to them as truth. It's like, we can do it in the hard sciences, but we cannot do it in the scriptures. We are trained to think critically and evaluatively in academic settings, but turn-off that process in evangelical settings. Proximity to a pew (or a Christian bookstore) makes us switch off our brain, stop concentrating so we can contrast and compare with what is written (read Isa 8:16,20), and unthinkingly accept whatever the latest evangelical idiot, excuse me, idol presents. That's what I call Bobblehead Believerism (just nod yes, like you understand).

Okay, I can see I'm going to have to illustrate this idea. Let me spread some purple ink on Rob Bell's Elvis again.2

• Bell says the doctrine of the Trinity "emerged in the several hundred years after Jesus' resurrection," when actually it was there all along, Christians simply coined a word to describe it.


• Bell says, "God has no thingness because there's no end to God," yet he wrote a book (some thing)—one that displays his attributes.


• Bell says, "The phrase 'personal relationship' isn't found anywhere in the Bible," but Paul spoke of wanting to know Christ in the fellowship of his sufferings.


• Bell says, "At one point in church history, a group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday but Sunday." No, when Jesus met with his homeboys after the resurrection it was on the first day of the week, and the rest of the New Testament evidence is that this practice was continued from earliest times (John 20:19,25; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2).


• Bell says, "I can't find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners." Well, how far did you look? Paul did in 1 Tim 1:15, where the word "chief" [KJV] means first and "foremost" [ESV] (for Jesus, see Luke 18:13).

It doesn't help any when Bell charges those who disagree with his novel interpretations as being part of "brickworld" evangelicalism. He cynically describes their focus as that of "getting people to believe the right thing so they can be 'in'", where "the goal is to get people to intellectually assent to [certain] things being true."

I object. I think Bell is perpetuating bobblehead evangelicalism. Bobblehead believers simply nod their head yes, accepting everything they read, and never challenge what is said by searching out the ideas in the scriptures.

Robbie talks about a woman in his church who wanted to simply "get back to the Bible and take it for what it really says," and labels such a view of the Bible "warped and toxic."

Bell says, "When you embrace the text as living and active, when you enter into its story, when you keep turning the gem, you never come to the end." No, but you can come to a conclusion. Stop being such a Bobblehead!

BTW, I know that looks like a bobblehead of Rob Bell in a suit, but to find out who it really is go to http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/detail.php?p=8368


1 Wright, N.T. The Last Word. (New York: HarperSanFranciso, 2005), 111.
2 Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).

Divine Interwoven

The discipleship conference in Philadelphia was outstanding. Rev. Lusk is a second-generation preacher as well as a former NFL player. He made the commitment that he would only play five years and then quit pro football to train for the ministry. He kept his promise. He took a broken-down urban church with 17 members and a lot of debt, and in 25 years (this is his anniversary) turned it into an inner-city ministry of powerhouse proportions. He impresses Presidents.

Their historic sanctuary seats 850. They have two services on Sunday morning. Communion was served since it was the first Sunday of the month. One of the Eagles coaches attended, as well as the state's first female (and African-American) judge.

Three hours went by like twenty minutes. The praise could have been a worship service in itself, as could have the Lord's Supper.

We brought a team of 21 (including three pastors) and trained about 200 of his leaders all day Saturday. They embarassed us with their hospitality and shamed us with their generosity. He has an urban ministry that employs almost 250 (People for People, Inc.), a welfare-to-work program, computer skills training, a charter school for 545 K-8 students, and much more.

Dr. Lusk feels like devoting more time to the church side of things, and that the presentation of our discipleship ministry is just the key they need. He described it in terms of bringing revival.

What a time. Thanks for praying. Continue to mention them before the throne for follow-up. We are scheduled to go to Phila. again in April for a conference at another church.