Married with Singles

I've been pretty swamped at work lately so I haven't had a chance to blog as much as I would like. I wanted to give a quick informational update on the goings on.

The church has called me to be a singles intern under Randy Beggs and Joe Patton. My duties will be to basically function as the interim singles minister, under Randy and Joe's supervision. Randy will still be the singles minister but since he is the interim high school minister, the majority of the singles duties will fall on me.

The duties basically include making sure events are planned and communicated to the group, contacting visitors during the week, teaching the ABF, taking roll in class and being the go to guy when people have questions. Randy and Joe want to make sure that there is strong leadership in place while Randy is working with the high school ministry.

I have to say that I'm very excited about the opportunity. It feels like Christmas eve. For those who have eyes to see, God is doing some awesome things at Cottonwood Creek.

I think the biggest challenge that I observe, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, are subtle areas where the "church" gets in the way of the gospel. Luckily, God is the one who is working, our challenge is to stay out of the way!

I have also been in contact with Jon Wood and we are planning to have a Bible Basics/Faith 101 class starting in the fall that I will teach. This class would be during the 11:00 ABF time slot. I'm really excited about this class and I feel that there is a great need for this in the church. It will NOT be "Christianity for dummies".

The fundamentals of the faith will be taught, with the assumption that the class members are intelligent - competent people, even though they may or may not have a lot of biblical knowledge or background. The class will be for ANYONE but will be especially focused on new Christians/new church members, or people who have been in church a long time but want to get a grounded understanding of what the Gospel is - so they can better understand and appreciate their time in church and their study in the future.

The content emphasis will be on teaching the story of God in the bible, what the Gospel is, as well as how we can feed ourselves with God's word.

The class will probably run 10 - 12 weeks and be repeated each semester. Those who go through the class would then move on to find an ABF. I also think it's a great way to channel newcomers to the church into a place where they can be welcomed and taught while they get comfortable and aware of all the church has to offer.

I am also tentatively planning to teach the LDS Truth & Recovery class again in the fall (still working out the details on this). This would be an extended version of the spring class and would probably go somewhere between 8 - 10 weeks. Based on the turnout to the previous class, I think the focus of the class will change a little bit. The primary focus of the actual class will be teaching/awareness with an emphasis on evangelism - as opposed to fellowship/support. Hopefully, the class will also help those in transition come out of the woodwork and provide opportunities for fellowship/support which would take place in a separate (though related) home group.

It's all alot to think about, but the beauty of the LDS group is that once the lessons are planned and the powerpoints are done (hopefully I'll get them all done before the class starts), the actual class requires very little time outside of actually teaching it.

The same goes for the Faith 101 class. This semester will be tough, but once the lessons are prepared, repeat teaching the course will be alot easier.

Please note also that these are not official announcements. Except for the singles ministry, the other two classes are "in the works". Though they are likely, they are not official - yet.

That's all I got!

CMP

PS. If you know singles 1 type people (unmarried/18-early 30s), send them to Merge on Thursday night at 7:30 in the atrium at Cottonwood Creek. It's legit.

Quick Correction

In an earlier post on James, I stated that he was a fisherman by trade. This may not have been the case. James - brother of John was a fisherman. James - brother of Jesus was ??? I don't know. I like to think he was an accountant. - Just kidding. If someone knows what he was before he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, please let me know.

Water! Water!

I am listening to a DTS podcast about bible translation and I had an interesting side thought. The podcasters were discussing the challenges of bible translation and the different ways the bible can be translated.

One of the challenges that comes up is that "literal" words/phrases don't mean the same thing in different languages. The challenge of the translator is to decide whether they should translate the "literal word" or the "literal meaning" (From Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English or other modern languages). I see merit to both. Here's the example I thought of from my foreign language experience.

In the Mexican Spanish that I learned while in California, the people use an expression which means "Watch out!" or "Be careful!" . They say "Agua! Agua!". The literal word translation of this is "Water! Water!". As you can see, this creates a challenge for a translator. Say I was a UN translator and one of the Mexican representatives used the term "Agua! Agua!". It would be silly for me to say "Water! Water!" into the microphone for the English speaking representative to hear. They would have no idea what the Mexican rep was talking about. I would justifiably translate this as "Watch out!" or "Be careful!".

When we talk about bible translation however, this becomes more complicated and this is where the audience/purpose of translation becomes important. As a serious student (albeit lay student) of the bible, I want to know what the actual words are. This will require some further research on my part, language study, commentary study, etc. to understand what the meaning of the text is. I would like a translation that says "Water! Water!".

However - the regular reader, the young person, the new Christian, or the non-believer might not benefit from that kind of translation. They probably want a translation that says "Watch out!" because they don't intend to take the time to research the language. Actually - I would also like this kind of translation (in addition to the other), to use as a casual reading bible or to use in conjuction with the word for word during more serious study.

There are dangers to both as well. In a purely word for word (ex. interlinear and to some extent the NASB), some of the "meaning" could be lost because the words don't make as much sense in English.

The opposite danger that I see is that in an effort to help the words and phrases "make sense", the translator may take too much liberty or may allow their personal theology to skew the translation. In other words, while some interpretation must be done - too much interpretation could also cause the "meaning" to be distorted. Alot of good translations will help this issue by including footnotes that give the actual greek word when they have "interpreted" it to be something else.

Also, the KJV creates special issues because although it falls a little closer to the "word for word" end of the spectrum, it is Hebrew/Greek to Old English. Therefore you have the special challenge of making sure the translation from the Greek is correct, and then you (the reader) have the challenge of translating Old English to Modern English (in your brain) to understand the meaning.

And for those of you who didn't know this; the modern translations are not translations from the KJV into Modern English. They are from the most original and/or most abundant (different discussion) Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic transcripts.

Conclusion - Agua! Agua! and don't assume that your "phrase for phrase" translation is "literal" and also don't pretend that you understand all of your "word for word" translation's expressions. Don't be too lazy to consult a "word for word" and don't be to proud to consult a "phrase for phrase". The good news is that there are abundant resources available (language study, commentaries, different translations, etc.) to help us get to the bottom of what the text says and what the text means.

Happy reading.

Religion & Magic

I am reading a book called "Early Mormonism and the Magical Worldview" (written by a BYU professor who is now a former BYU professor because of the book). I am only 3/4 through the introduction but it is already very interesting.

The author makes the point that magic and religion are very similar. The difference is that society has deemed magic as "bad" and religion as "good/virtuous". They both use ritual, words, signs, actions, etc. to achieve certain results.

I agree with the author that religion and magic are fundamentally the same. This comparison reveals a lot about the author's worldview resulting from his LDS background. It is also an example of why I am no longer LDS nor do I consider myself "religious".

In a magical worldview (this is describing the occult and NOT the optical illusions of modern day magicians) a person attempts to manipulate his surroundings (both visible and invisible) by appealing to some kind of natural order through ritual, incantations, proper behaviors, sacred objects, etc. This manipulation is to achieve a result desired by the person whether that be health, wealth, wisdom, defeat of an enemy, finding treasure, telling the future, etc.

In a religious worldview, a person uses similar manipulations such as ritual, incantations (liturgy or prayers), proper behaviors (morality), sacred objects (cups, temples, altars, oil), etc. to attempt to achieve a desired result. The result desired may be similar to those described above, or it may simply be "heaven" or a kind of "paradise". The main difference I see between magic and religion, is that while the occult may be trying to manipulate nature or the unseen world, the religious try to manipulate God to achieve their desired result.

In religion, God becomes the means to an end. This is true, in some way or another, of all major "religions" (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism). About Mormonism specifically (since the author's background is what sparked this blog post), the manipulation plays out something like this.

In Mormonism, God is the means to the end of man's exaltation (godhood). We bind God through the performance of ritual (ordinances), proper behaviors (works/obedience), sacred objects (garments/temples/seer stones), etc. and he must therefore bless us in this life and grant us exaltation in the life to come. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (rough quote D&C 82). This runs parallel to the magical idea that if a person says the incantation correctly, is a virgin, and does the ritual dance correctly, then "nature" or whatever power they appeal to, will be compelled to grant their demands.

The idea that God is a means to an end is further evidenced by the statement I have heard many times (and made myself) that "If all we are doing in heaven is singing praise to God I think that will get pretty boring. God is not that selfish that he would want us to spend eternity singing his praises." Also the idea that "Even if I'm not in the celestial kingdom with God, I'll be comfortable wherever I am." In both ideas, God is not what is desired - rather the person desires comfort or godhood.

Christian denominations are not immune to this kind of "religious" thinking. There are many in Baptist, Methodist, and non-denominational churches who obey God, "get saved", attend church, etc. because they are seeking their heavenly reward - whatever they envision that reward to be (this usually involves a mansion of some sort and eternal comfort - possibly playing a harp on a cloud). Or, they are simply trying to avoid their understanding of hell (small houses, fire, and eternal discomfort - also, no harps).

This is why true Christianity is different from every major religion. Christianity is not a religion, it is just the reality of what God is doing in the universe and what our role is in that reality. The Christian does not seek to manipulate God in order to receive a desired outcome. For a true Christian, God IS the treasure we seek (mansion or no mansion). When God is the treasure you seek, then hell becomes anywhere that you are separate from God. God's purpose is not to be the means by which we can move on to bigger and better things (our own godhood). There is nothing bigger and better than He is (X infinity). His purpose is the glory of His name by reconciling the world to himself through the saving work of Jesus Christ. God is bound by nothing and can not be manipulated. The good that He bestows upon us is because of His grace and mercy - not because we have bound Him by our obedience, ritual, etc.

Much more could be said about this. Suffice it to say that the magical/religious and the Christian paradigms are fundamentally different and have a profound effect on how we view ourselves, God, our purpose, God's purpose, morality, obedience, heaven and the meaning of life.

I'm interested to see what else the former BYU professor has to say on magic.