Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why are the scriptures not considered more important in our church services?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Why? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.
    Care to recommend any specific churches/congreations? I would be interested in attending as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Being a 'show-off' is not good, of course, but false humility is also false. Part of this idea is to recognize the value of dynamic equivalence translations, which are very transitory in nature. To always rely on one (or even several) standard translation depletes the scriptures from the richer meaning contained in the original languages. It is at times appropriate, I think, to highlight one particular aspect of the original in speaking to a congregation, eg, maybe some in the congregation might need to be reminded of the 'advocate' character of the Paraclete at times, rather than being 'comforted'. This can be done by intense linguistic, grammatical or lexicographic analysis, but that to can be very off-putting, boring, and also 'show-offy', whereas the prophetic authority of the scriptures and the work of the Spirit can sometimes be more effectively communicated as the word of God rather than one grammatical opinion among many others. I also agree with the reasons advanced by Paprika.
    Well, as I mentioned earlier, there are Protestant churches that will take time to break down a word or verse in Greek/Hebrew. I've been to services where a pastor will read the same passage in 3 or 4 different translations, go into the Greek or Hebrew roots, quote from some concordance, and so on. They don't bust all that out for every passage read for every sermon, but its not particularly uncommon. Again, most good preachers (at least the ones I've seen) have a certain flow in their delivery, and they're not going to constantly interrupt that flow to break out the Greek and Hebrew, and neither, in my opinion, should they.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective. I've been to many urban centered churches where the congregations have a hard enough time understanding the Bible in English. Reading long passages in the original language at these types of churches would likely have the effect of driving people out of the church rather than into them. For many churches, its more important to be relevant/relatable than it is to be academic. The Gospel is a living and vibrant message for the common people of today as much as it was a living message for the common people 2,000 years ago. Personally, I'd absolutely consider attending a service that taught in both Greek/Hebrew and English, but I realize that that's not for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be.
    See also my response directly above. The idea of a dynamic equivalence translation is precisely meant to avoid an overly academic approach and to provided the opportunity for the living and vibrant message for all the people of today. The reading in the original language is not strictly necessary to this, but it does help us all to be aware of the limitations of translations, dynamic or otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Why? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.
    Being a 'show-off' is not good, of course, but false humility is also false. Part of this idea is to recognize the value of dynamic equivalence translations, which are very transitory in nature. To always rely on one (or even several) standard translation depletes the scriptures from the richer meaning contained in the original languages. It is at times appropriate, I think, to highlight one particular aspect of the original in speaking to a congregation, eg, maybe some in the congregation might need to be reminded of the 'advocate' character of the Paraclete at times, rather than being 'comforted'. This can be done by intense linguistic, grammatical or lexicographic analysis, but that to can be very off-putting, boring, and also 'show-offy', whereas the prophetic authority of the scriptures and the work of the Spirit can sometimes be more effectively communicated as the word of God rather than one grammatical opinion among many others. I also agree with the reasons advanced by Paprika.

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Robrecht probably has his own reasons, but here are mine: firstly, there are people who know the original languages who will be edified by such a reading. Secondly, it challenges and motivates the congregation to learn the original languages.
    Maybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective. I've been to many urban centered churches where the congregations have a hard enough time understanding the Bible in English. Reading long passages in the original language at these types of churches would likely have the effect of driving people out of the church rather than into them. For many churches, its more important to be relevant/relatable than it is to be academic. The Gospel is a living and vibrant message for the common people of today as much as it was a living message for the common people 2,000 years ago. Personally, I'd absolutely consider attending a service that taught in both Greek/Hebrew and English, but I realize that that's not for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Why? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.
    Robrecht probably has his own reasons, but here are mine: firstly, there are people who know the original languages who will be edified by such a reading. Secondly, it challenges and motivates the congregation to learn the original languages.

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Interesting, I just assumed that common Protestant practice was the same as catholic and Anglican/Episcopal practice with respect to the reading of the scriptures in church services. We always have a reading from the 'Old Testament', from the epistles, and from the gospels. These readings are from an official lectionary and not the choice of the priest or deacon who then gives a homily that is based on those readings. Only during weddings and funerals are readings chosen specifically by the pastor, couple, or family.
    It probably depends on the type of Protestant service you attend. I've attended some Protestant services where I honestly can't remember if scripture was read once, but I've also been to plenty of services where plenty of old and new were read out, explained, Greek and Hebrew words broken down, notes were being taken by the congregation, etc. I've taken Catholics to some of the Protestant services I attended and they were blown away. Thought it was more like a college course than a sermon.

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    The idea isn't about quoting the original languages, but to do the Scriptural readings in both the original and the layman's language.
    Why? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Robrecht: Your classes sound awesome!

    Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
    If it's a good idea (if), I say it should be forced. People might hate it at first, but they'll either eventually come to love it, or be indifferent, or apathetic to getting rid of it. So long as the forced practice is widespread enough that they can't escape it.
    Agreed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    While I agree that anti-intellectualism is rampant in the church, I don't think the lack of quoting scripture in its original language is a sign of that.
    The idea isn't about quoting the original languages, but to do the Scriptural readings in both the original and the layman's language.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by Just Some Dude View Post
    Course, I'd be happy if more of the Scripture, in English, was simply read aloud to the congregation (not during the sermon), as opposed to expecting people to read it in their off time. Especially the reading of the Old Testament. I've only been to one Protestant church, a Lutheran church, that did this. Most others either didn't read the Scriptures, read only what was pertinent to the preacher's sermon, or only read from the New Testament (and if I was at said churches long enough, I'm quick to bet that none of the hard passages of the New Testament would ever come up).
    Interesting, I just assumed that common Protestant practice was the same as catholic and Anglican/Episcopal practice with respect to the reading of the scriptures in church services. We always have a reading from the 'Old Testament', from the epistles, and from the gospels. These readings are from an official lectionary and not the choice of the priest or deacon who then gives a homily that is based on those readings. Only during weddings and funerals are readings chosen specifically by the pastor, couple, or family.

    Leave a comment:


  • Just Some Dude
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I can probably list some of the reasons most people would give in answer to the question, but to me they don't really make any sense. Really, the rampant anti-intellectualism just doesn't make any sense. I love the idea; in a discussion with a friend I've proposed Scripture reading in the original languages though the lector making dynamic translation is something I didn't consider, but I think we would agree that such an idea would face quite some opposition by people in our own churches and western churches in general.
    If it's a good idea (if), I say it should be forced. People might hate it at first, but they'll either eventually come to love it, or be indifferent, or apathetic to getting rid of it. So long as the forced practice is widespread enough that they can't escape it.

    Course, I'd be happy if more of the Scripture, in English, was simply read aloud to the congregation (not during the sermon), as opposed to expecting people to read it in their off time. Especially the reading of the Old Testament. I've only been to one Protestant church, a Lutheran church, that did this. Most others either didn't read the Scriptures, read only what was pertinent to the preacher's sermon, or only read from the New Testament (and if I was at said churches long enough, I'm quick to bet that none of the hard passages of the New Testament would ever come up).

    Leave a comment:


  • OingoBoingo
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I can probably list some of the reasons most people would give in answer to the question, but to me they don't really make any sense. Really, the rampant anti-intellectualism just doesn't make any sense. I love the idea; in a discussion with a friend I've proposed Scripture reading in the original languages though the lector making dynamic translation is something I didn't consider, but I think we would agree that such an idea would face quite some opposition by people in our own churches and western churches in general.
    While I agree that anti-intellectualism is rampant in the church, I don't think the lack of quoting scripture in its original language is a sign of that. Some pastors preach in a spontaneous type of flow, and stopping to read a language in the Greek or Hebrew could interrupt that flow. I've seen plenty of pastors who will break a word or two down into the Greek, and explain what that Greek word means, but doing so for lengthy passages could get tedious for the congregation after awhile. One of the greatest successes of the Reformation was allowing laymen to understand the Bible in their own language, and I can't think of any good reason to break down every passage into Hebrew and Greek if the English translations imparts the correct meaning. Most pastors don't know Hebrew or Greek anyways, and may not have the time or resources to learn.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    I start out by playing a recording of someone speaking a foreign language and asking if anyone understands. This works better when some(one) in the class are bilingual. Then I read the scriptures in the original language and interpret to the best of my ability. The kids love seeing the original language texts and I have them look very closely at their translations and encourage them to ask as many questions as possible about anything that seems strange to them. I resist the temptation to answer these questions, except with more questions. I have them draw pictures of each day of creation until they notice some differences between Genesis chapters 1& 2. We look at imaginative midrashim that have focused on some of their questions for thousands of years. Sometimes we make fun of what the priest or other teachers or parents have said and we ask them, very respectively of course, how they interpret some difficulty we have discovered in class. When they question me, I know they've started to read and question on their own. Everyone must learn the Hebrew alphabet and some will memorize verses in Hebrew, which they then get to recite for the whole congregation. It's a lot of fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    By the way, how do you use the original languages in your classes? How do the kids react?

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X