Day Twenty-Four - Transformed by Truth
In this chapter Mr. Warren brings us an eloquent exhortation concerning God’s Word. Rightly, he emphasizes the uniqueness of God’s Word. Says he, “God’s Word is unlike any other word.” (p.185) Rightly, he emphasizes the power and authority of God’s Word. “The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life,” he says. (p. 187) Rightly, he encourages us to read God’s Word, to study it, to commit it to memory, to meditate upon it, and to apply it to our lives in every outward, practical way. “You should consider it as essential to your life as food.” (p. 186) Rightly, he cautions that human judgment and tradition are spoiled by sin. Rightly, he urges that only the Word of God is flawless. Every reader ought to give hearty assent to these exhortations.
This chapter stands out in sharp contrast to the remainder of this book. It comprises an essay that could stand on its own as a stirring call for dedication to and study and application of the Bible as the unique, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. As such, it stands in critique of the prior chapters. Under the microscope that Mr. Warren teaches in this chapter, all his prior chapters wither. He tells us on page 185 that God’s Word is unlike any other word, but on page 21 he failed to distinguish clearly between God’s Word and words that “all by themselves” appear in the human mind. He exhorts us on page 187 that, “The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life,” but on page 136 he told us that it is the Church that provides us “principles to live by.” He tells us on page 186 that it is the Word of God that “frightens the Devil,” but on page 136 he said that it is the Church that provides our defense against Satan. He is most emphatic on page 185 that, “Spiritual growth is the process of replacing lies with truth,” but only two pages earlier, in the prior chapter, he said that, “Thinking of others is the heart of Christlikeness and the best evidence of spiritual growth.” Numerous other perplexing examples could be cited. Perhaps the most dramatic discrepancy involves the matter of memorization of Scripture.
In the present chapter Mr. Warren lists memorization of Scripture as one of five methods of assimilating its truth. “There are enormous benefits to memorizing Bible verses,” he says. (p. 189) But in Appendix 3, wherein he explains his use of so many different version of the Bible, he argues in a way that precludes memorization. He says that, “…we often miss the full impact of familiar Bible verses…simply because they have become so familiar!” (p. 325) Continuing, he says that, “We think we know what a verse says because we have read it or heard it so many times.” He says that he has employed so many different versions of the Bible, “…in order to help you see God’s truth in new, fresh ways.” It cannot be stressed too strongly that what Mr. Warren argues in Appendix 3 runs directly and completely counter to the memorization of Scripture. In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren argues in favor of memorization so that the contents of Scripture will become familiar to us. In Appendix 3 he derides familiarity and suggests that we can miss the meaning of Scripture due to familiarity (!?). In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren explains that memorization occurs as a result of constant review. In Appendix 3 he warns that such constant review is unhelpful because it leaves us in a state where we only think we know what Scripture says. The memorization he terms as having “enormous benefit” in Chapter 24, he identifies in Appendix 3 as the sure means of missing what God says. It is important to reiterate that Mr. Warren’s arguments in Appendix 3 are given in explanation of his use of 15 different translations and paraphrases of Scripture. Of course, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to memorize Scripture if constantly reading it in so many different versions. Memorization is successful only when concentrating on a particular translation. The method presented in this book of consulting 15 different version of the Bible effectively precludes memorization. Accordingly, Mr. Warren argues in his Appendix that one is likely to miss what God says if he restricts himself to the same old familiar translation. Yet, he wishes to speak to us in Chapter 24 of the “enormous benefits” of memorization. How shall we account for such a dramatic contradiction presented to us by a single writer within the pages of a single volume? Ultimately, such wavering must arise from an inner conflict that would be beyond the scope of anyone to grasp. I shall not delve into speculation. However, as good as this chapter is as a basic exhortation for Bible study, it does bear within it some subtle seeds of corruption. We shall examine two examples.
In his discussion of the authority of the Bible, Mr. Warren says, “The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life.” (p. 186) Of course, the Bible already is the authoritative standard for everyone’s life, whether they acknowledge it or not. That is precisely why it is a mortal failing for unbelievers to refuse to bow before their Creator and Judge. If it really were possible for the Bible to become this authoritative standard upon anyone’s selection of it to serve this purpose, then this would only prove that it cannot be the Word of the infinite, eternal and sovereign Creator of all things. As authoritative standard, God’s Word is the only sure foundation upon which human evaluation can occur. If men pretend to esteem the Bible only once it has passed under human evaluation, then in the nature of the case it cannot be esteemed correctly.
Second, Mr. Warren asserts that, “…our receptiveness determines whether or not God’s Word takes root in our lives.” (p. 188) This is the same thing as saying that the effectiveness of God’s Word depends upon human will. And, this is the same thing as saying that God depends upon Man. And, as Rushdoony put it: “What depends on Man is less than Man.” To be sure, it is a grave responsibility for one to cultivate his appetite for the Word of God. However, this is not the same thing as to say that Man “determines” the success of God’s Word.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth,
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
(Is. 55:10-11)
If one approaches the Bible as something that his own evaluation has determined should “become” an authority in his life, then this implies an authority within him by which the Bible is elevated to this status. In this case the inner authority always will outrank whatever authority is ascribed to the Bible. The supposed preeminence of human authority also is attested by the notion that man controls the extent to which God’s Word is effective in his life. Mr. Warren already in this chapter enunciated a more orthodox doctrine of God’s Word. This Word is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), is creative (Gen. 1), and does not fail to accomplish God’s desires (Is. 55:11). However, opening the door to notions that ascribe to Man some measure of authority along side or above God’s Word leads directly to the notion of the correlativity of God and Man. The idea of correlativity does not honor God as the Creator that the Bible truly teaches Him to be, denies that Man is a sinner who owes a debt to God, and therefore conceives of redemption as anything but the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement in Christ.
I should like to close this section with a brief word about Bible translations and paraphrases. Over the last twenty years or so there has been an explosion of various Bible versions. Most of them are of a variety that is meant to try to get through to readers of the popular modern mindset. These take great liberties with the text in order to express things in jargon that does not sound too “holy” or scholastic. Many such versions still call themselves “translations,” but in my book they are not. I offer the following illustration:
Someone was having trouble browsing the Internet and resorted to calling in technical assistance. The technician made necessary adjustments and then browsing the Internet once again was successful. Curious, the customer asked the technician for an explanation of the problem. The technician said, “Your ISP changed their DNS Servers, but your local machine had DNS Server IP Addresses statically assigned, and therefore could not pick up the changes via DCHP.” Relating this incident to others, the customer’s friends also were curious about the nature of the problem and asked concerning the technician, “What did he say?” Now, there are two different senses in which this question may be understood, and thus two different answers that may be given. The question “What did he say?” could be meant literally, and the only satisfactory answer would be to relate the technician’s words verbatim. Or, the question could be meant hermeneutically, in which case a satisfactory answer consists of an interpretative explanation of the technician’s remarks. A lot of people would find the technician’s literal remarks uninteresting and would focus upon hermeneutics. But hermeneutics cannot float about in the air. It must be based upon some definitive word. Apart from the definitive word, there would no means of discerning whether the hermeneutics was correct. In the case of the human speaker, there remains the issue of whether the word itself is correct. God’s Word is by definition correct. His Word is truth. The question “What has God said?” also may be understood in two different senses and therefore may be given a literal or a hermeneutical answer. The popular appetite these days seems to be for hermeneutics. However, the hermeneutics of a paraphrase cannot substitute for the literality of a translation. A translation must strive to tell us literally, “What has God said?” Many works claiming to be translations clearly do not do this. The Bible study and memorization that Mr. Warren urges in this chapter ought to be done in an actual translation of Scripture. For deeper study, a number of original language helps for the layman are readily available and not difficult to use. By all means, let the Bible study that Mr. Warren urges seriously be pursued by all readers.
This chapter stands out in sharp contrast to the remainder of this book. It comprises an essay that could stand on its own as a stirring call for dedication to and study and application of the Bible as the unique, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. As such, it stands in critique of the prior chapters. Under the microscope that Mr. Warren teaches in this chapter, all his prior chapters wither. He tells us on page 185 that God’s Word is unlike any other word, but on page 21 he failed to distinguish clearly between God’s Word and words that “all by themselves” appear in the human mind. He exhorts us on page 187 that, “The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life,” but on page 136 he told us that it is the Church that provides us “principles to live by.” He tells us on page 186 that it is the Word of God that “frightens the Devil,” but on page 136 he said that it is the Church that provides our defense against Satan. He is most emphatic on page 185 that, “Spiritual growth is the process of replacing lies with truth,” but only two pages earlier, in the prior chapter, he said that, “Thinking of others is the heart of Christlikeness and the best evidence of spiritual growth.” Numerous other perplexing examples could be cited. Perhaps the most dramatic discrepancy involves the matter of memorization of Scripture.
In the present chapter Mr. Warren lists memorization of Scripture as one of five methods of assimilating its truth. “There are enormous benefits to memorizing Bible verses,” he says. (p. 189) But in Appendix 3, wherein he explains his use of so many different version of the Bible, he argues in a way that precludes memorization. He says that, “…we often miss the full impact of familiar Bible verses…simply because they have become so familiar!” (p. 325) Continuing, he says that, “We think we know what a verse says because we have read it or heard it so many times.” He says that he has employed so many different versions of the Bible, “…in order to help you see God’s truth in new, fresh ways.” It cannot be stressed too strongly that what Mr. Warren argues in Appendix 3 runs directly and completely counter to the memorization of Scripture. In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren argues in favor of memorization so that the contents of Scripture will become familiar to us. In Appendix 3 he derides familiarity and suggests that we can miss the meaning of Scripture due to familiarity (!?). In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren explains that memorization occurs as a result of constant review. In Appendix 3 he warns that such constant review is unhelpful because it leaves us in a state where we only think we know what Scripture says. The memorization he terms as having “enormous benefit” in Chapter 24, he identifies in Appendix 3 as the sure means of missing what God says. It is important to reiterate that Mr. Warren’s arguments in Appendix 3 are given in explanation of his use of 15 different translations and paraphrases of Scripture. Of course, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to memorize Scripture if constantly reading it in so many different versions. Memorization is successful only when concentrating on a particular translation. The method presented in this book of consulting 15 different version of the Bible effectively precludes memorization. Accordingly, Mr. Warren argues in his Appendix that one is likely to miss what God says if he restricts himself to the same old familiar translation. Yet, he wishes to speak to us in Chapter 24 of the “enormous benefits” of memorization. How shall we account for such a dramatic contradiction presented to us by a single writer within the pages of a single volume? Ultimately, such wavering must arise from an inner conflict that would be beyond the scope of anyone to grasp. I shall not delve into speculation. However, as good as this chapter is as a basic exhortation for Bible study, it does bear within it some subtle seeds of corruption. We shall examine two examples.
In his discussion of the authority of the Bible, Mr. Warren says, “The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life.” (p. 186) Of course, the Bible already is the authoritative standard for everyone’s life, whether they acknowledge it or not. That is precisely why it is a mortal failing for unbelievers to refuse to bow before their Creator and Judge. If it really were possible for the Bible to become this authoritative standard upon anyone’s selection of it to serve this purpose, then this would only prove that it cannot be the Word of the infinite, eternal and sovereign Creator of all things. As authoritative standard, God’s Word is the only sure foundation upon which human evaluation can occur. If men pretend to esteem the Bible only once it has passed under human evaluation, then in the nature of the case it cannot be esteemed correctly.
Second, Mr. Warren asserts that, “…our receptiveness determines whether or not God’s Word takes root in our lives.” (p. 188) This is the same thing as saying that the effectiveness of God’s Word depends upon human will. And, this is the same thing as saying that God depends upon Man. And, as Rushdoony put it: “What depends on Man is less than Man.” To be sure, it is a grave responsibility for one to cultivate his appetite for the Word of God. However, this is not the same thing as to say that Man “determines” the success of God’s Word.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth,
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
(Is. 55:10-11)
If one approaches the Bible as something that his own evaluation has determined should “become” an authority in his life, then this implies an authority within him by which the Bible is elevated to this status. In this case the inner authority always will outrank whatever authority is ascribed to the Bible. The supposed preeminence of human authority also is attested by the notion that man controls the extent to which God’s Word is effective in his life. Mr. Warren already in this chapter enunciated a more orthodox doctrine of God’s Word. This Word is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), is creative (Gen. 1), and does not fail to accomplish God’s desires (Is. 55:11). However, opening the door to notions that ascribe to Man some measure of authority along side or above God’s Word leads directly to the notion of the correlativity of God and Man. The idea of correlativity does not honor God as the Creator that the Bible truly teaches Him to be, denies that Man is a sinner who owes a debt to God, and therefore conceives of redemption as anything but the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement in Christ.
I should like to close this section with a brief word about Bible translations and paraphrases. Over the last twenty years or so there has been an explosion of various Bible versions. Most of them are of a variety that is meant to try to get through to readers of the popular modern mindset. These take great liberties with the text in order to express things in jargon that does not sound too “holy” or scholastic. Many such versions still call themselves “translations,” but in my book they are not. I offer the following illustration:
Someone was having trouble browsing the Internet and resorted to calling in technical assistance. The technician made necessary adjustments and then browsing the Internet once again was successful. Curious, the customer asked the technician for an explanation of the problem. The technician said, “Your ISP changed their DNS Servers, but your local machine had DNS Server IP Addresses statically assigned, and therefore could not pick up the changes via DCHP.” Relating this incident to others, the customer’s friends also were curious about the nature of the problem and asked concerning the technician, “What did he say?” Now, there are two different senses in which this question may be understood, and thus two different answers that may be given. The question “What did he say?” could be meant literally, and the only satisfactory answer would be to relate the technician’s words verbatim. Or, the question could be meant hermeneutically, in which case a satisfactory answer consists of an interpretative explanation of the technician’s remarks. A lot of people would find the technician’s literal remarks uninteresting and would focus upon hermeneutics. But hermeneutics cannot float about in the air. It must be based upon some definitive word. Apart from the definitive word, there would no means of discerning whether the hermeneutics was correct. In the case of the human speaker, there remains the issue of whether the word itself is correct. God’s Word is by definition correct. His Word is truth. The question “What has God said?” also may be understood in two different senses and therefore may be given a literal or a hermeneutical answer. The popular appetite these days seems to be for hermeneutics. However, the hermeneutics of a paraphrase cannot substitute for the literality of a translation. A translation must strive to tell us literally, “What has God said?” Many works claiming to be translations clearly do not do this. The Bible study and memorization that Mr. Warren urges in this chapter ought to be done in an actual translation of Scripture. For deeper study, a number of original language helps for the layman are readily available and not difficult to use. By all means, let the Bible study that Mr. Warren urges seriously be pursued by all readers.
posted by S. C. Mooney at 10:18 PM
2 Comments:
BIBLE VERSIONS WHICH IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? Find out at www.biblediscernment.com
You mentioned Rick Warren's suggested methods for scripture memorization. I too dislike his suggestions for scripture memorization while using several different translations. Personally, I try to consistently read the Bible and become familiar with the context under which something is written. That way I know what a given chapter of the Bible is talking about. I think that too much emphasis is given today on simply memorizing Bible verses without understaning what they mean or the context in which they were written.
Post a Comment
<< Home