Skip to main content

David,

I serve on the Denominational Translation Review committee and we have not reviewed the 2011 NIV.

Generally, we don't do that unless a classis overtures for a translation to be reviewed and that has not happened (yet) in this case.

Another reality is that the Denominational Translation Review Committee is not really a standing committee, but was more of an ad hoc committee under the supervision of CRC Publications.

My guess is that no one has yet thought about where any new Translation Review work would be housed. Probably in the Denominational Board of Trustees.

Another question is whether the 2011 NIV would need a special review. Since the earlier NIV and the TNIV have both been studied and approved, and the 2011 NIV runs pretty close to the 1984 edition of the NIV, and even closer to the TNIV, it may be just assumed that it's approved.

That would be my opinion, for what it's worth.

Blessings,
Thomas Niehof
Ames, Iowa

Well, Reggie,

I guess you have told us a few things we didn't want to hear, but needed to hear. Thanks for your thoughts and reflections. It's not possible to cover every angle in a piece that length. But you put before us some things we need to face.

Carry on,

Tom Niehof

 

Good thoughts, John.

These exercises are helpful not only in an individual context but would stimulate some good reflection in a Peer Learning Group or mentoring relationship.

Thanks for sharing.

Posted in: The System

Scott,

I think you are correct that the system is not working so well right now.

I hope some new ideas come forth in response to your thoughts.

Here's my two cents worth: Don't dismiss the "bishop" option so quickly. I had never considered it until I spent time in Nigeria and saw how well it can work. Now I am back home serving as chairman of CIC, often thinking that I have most of the responsibilities of the bishop with none of the authority. Maybe we should just "go for broke" and return to the historic polity of the church.

 

Verlyn,

Thanks for an interesting post on Paul's pastoral sense and strategy.

It's an interesting thesis: Paul learned gradually that local pastors have more influence than out-of-town experts and therefore shifted his strategy from writing letters to churches to writing letters to local pastors.

It's an interesting thesis, which I will explore with my students the next time I teach NT Survey.

But I think it breaks down at a couple of points.

-Paul's letters to Philippi and Thessalonica seem to have been well-received and accomplished their purpose. So maybe the contrast is not so much letter vs. personal presence as Corinth vs. Macedonia.

-It seems clear that Titus was able to turn the situation around in Corinth. This was likely due to his exceptional ability, more than the force of personal presence. Paul's personal presence in Corinth did not always accomplish his goals, any more than his letters did.

-having served in several locations as a local pastor, and on several occasions as the out-of-town expert (including writing "pastoral letters" from afar),  I do not think there is a clear pattern of local pastors having more influence. I have seen it work sometimes one way, sometimes the other.

Maybe the take-away point is: vary your strategy.  Which is, I guess, just what you say Paul was doing.

Thanks for writing,

Thomas Niehof

 

Good thoughts, George.

I am reminded of Mark Wilson's comment about Paul's first missionary journey--when Paul and Barnabas were in Derbe (Acts 14:20) they were about one decent mountain away from Tarsus, and home. Instead of crosssing that mountain they turned around and visited every church that they had just planted a few weeks earlier. Strictly for the purpose of encouraging them and establishing them. Let us follow in their steps, in whatever way we can.

When Trinity, Sparta, approached Synod and asked to transfer to Classis Minnkota the response from the majority of delegates was something like, "There is a place for churches that hold to the earlier view on this issue; that place is in the classes that they are presently part of. Let them stay there and be happy."

 

I couldn't help but think of the message to women in the CRC of my youth. The message was, "There is a place for you in the church. That place is the kitchen. Stay there and be happy."

Eventually we realized that telling people "There is a place for you" ought to carry with it some freedom to choose their own place, and not be told where to stand, or  "hide in the corner"

 

If we really believe there is a place for churches like Trinity, Sparta, in the denomination we ought to have the decency to let them have some say in where that place is.

 

To do otherwise is sheer hypocrisy.

Thomas Niehof

 

Right on, George!

I well remember being the featured speaker at the high school athletic banquet about three months into my first pastorate.

A few weeks later I spoke to their grandmothers at the hospital auxilary.

In between I was at the hospital because a person I had never met was dying and he asked the nurse to "call a pastor".

In a rural/small town ministry a pastor is truly a pastor to everyone in the area, and there is something very rewarding about that.

 

Sam raises some interesting points, and perhaps the "head-hunter" model needs to be given more consideration.

But the reality is that we have tried that to some extent, with MIS, and now Pastor Church Relations, and it hasn't seemed to slow the problem (or maybe it has--maybe the separations would be even higher without PCR).

Search committees are spending much more time than they did 30 years ago, and the problem has gotten worse instead of better. Perhaps all this effort at "finding the right fit" has actually made things worse, by raising the expectations and thus almost guaranteeing disappointment.

I hope we find some way forward out of the current uncertainty and pain.

Two comments:

1. It's not new. There is an incident from the life of Ben Franklin. Franklin's young pastor was accused of using someone else's sermons. Franklin's comment was, I'd rather he preach a good sermon that someone else wrote than a poor one that he wrote.

2. All of George's "preventions" are from the point of view of how to prevent yourself from stealing someone else's sermon. I would like to suggest a better "prevention" which will prevent other people from stealing yours: write sermons that are so true to your life and so true to the specific life of the congregation before you that they would look silly if stolen and preached by someone else.

Reggie,

Thank you for sharing, and for your attitude of grace toward your wife's parents. I think your approach is correct. Theirs, however, is indeed a *small* step in the right direction. Someday I hope they say to you, "What we did was wrong, we are sorry, we are asking you to forgive us"

That puts the weight on them, where it belongs. "Have you forgiven us" puts the weight on you, which is not where the weight should be in this case.

Carry on, brother 

 

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post