“Finding Our Voice: Good news in different packaging”
Sermon Preached by
The Rev. David McMaster
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Text: Acts 17:22-31
If you are over 50-ish, you may remember a time when there was, essentially, one Bible in English, the King James Version, first published 400 years ago in 1611. Of course, given changes in the English language, other versions had been produced, but until the 1960s or so, the KJV had the claim to being, “the Bible.” Since that time, versions of the Bible have abounded and it is hard to find any one of them that has general acceptance today. There have been ramifications for group Bible Studies. When one attends one it is not unusual to find almost as many versions around the room as there are people. Communal reading of the Bible can be quite challenging. And so, I wonder, this morning, if you have ever pondered the Bible and its many versions. I wonder if you have ever thought about the differences between one translation and another.
Every committee that undertakes a translation of the Bible does so with an aim, a purpose, an audience in mind for the translation. There are those that aim for “a formal equivalence model,” for instance, in which they desire a literal, almost word for word translation of the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts. The New American Standard Version is a good example of this. Then there are those that aim for “a dynamic equivalence model,” such that they worry less about word order and literalness, and focus on translating the thought of the ancient manuscripts into an equivalent English thought. The New English Bible or the Good News versions would be examples of this.
Beyond that, decisions are made about what level of English the texts should be translated into. Some will aim at a Grade 11 or 12 level of reading, such as the New Revised Standard Version, while others wish to keep it simple so that even the youngest and least educated may understand the word of God. Versions such as the CEV, Contemporary English Version are aimed at something like a Grade 3 reading capacity and are good for those who have English as a second language.
I have in my hands today, two versions of the Bible. One is perhaps the most scholarly translation, The NRSV, the other is The Picture Bible that we use with the Handicapable Ministry to developmentally disabled adults here at the church. If you flip through them, you will find that the NRSV is a traditionally laid out Bible, not unlike the KJV of old. The Picture Bible, however, features cartoons, cartoon bubbles bearing the words of the characters depicted in the drawings, and little bits of text sometimes under the cartoon to give a little bit of context. What the authors of The Picture Bible aimed at was to put the word of God into the simplest form for children. They have been selective, not all of the biblical text is there. They have taken liberties at times with the text so that the gist of things comes through without big words and literalness. Yet, they have included the basic thoughts about creation, major biblical stories and characters, Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, and the growth of the early church. The core truth about God and Jesus is in The Picture Bible in a very simple form but the depth, the breadth, the fullness of the material that is in Bibles like the NRSV is not there. The producers had different aims, they were aiming at a different audience, in the hope that children would read, enjoy, and understand.
It intrigued me, as I read again The Acts of the Apostles, that we find a similar thing going on with the gospel message depending on who is being addressed by the speaker. Most of the time, Peter or Stephen or Paul are addressing a Jewish audience whether in Judaea or in synagogues throughout the Roman empire. When we look closely at messages to Jewish audiences, it can be noted that certain things are there. Assumptions are made about what they know about God and sin and judgment and the scriptures, and the story is told accordingly. Thus in Acts 2 following the events of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Peter is able to point to the scriptures and say, this is what was foretold by the prophet Joel when he said, “in the last days…I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams… (2:17ff.).” As he speaks of Jesus and his resurrection, he explains that this is exactly what David already told us about in Psalm 16:8-11, that he would never let his “Holy One see corruption (2:25ff.).” Yet again, Peter points to the scriptures to support his assertion that Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven (2:34ff.). This is the common practice when the first disciples and apostles spoke to Jewish gatherings.
When we come to the message to the people of Athens, however, there are intriguing differences. In Acts 17, we read that Paul was upset by the idolatry present in Athenian culture and made himself heard so much in the marketplace that some invited him to the “speaker's corner” in the Areopagus.
I remember at an anniversary service at my last church, the Mayor of Markham, Frank Scarpitti, was present and I asked him if he would like to say a few words. “Of course,” he said as he came forward and took the microphone, “I have never met a microphone that I didn't like,” he said, as he started a 10 minute monologue. Although Paul may not have had microphone technology, he had a voice and he never turned down an opportunity to present the good news about Jesus. And so he went to the Areopagus and began to speak.
As he addressed the crowd, he spoke first about how he had walked around the city and noticed many shrines to various gods. “I perceive that you are very religious,” he deduced, “Why? You even have an altar marked, ”˜to the unknown god' and it is the god you do not know that I would like to proclaim to you today. I want to talk about the God who made the world and everything in it. Because he is the Lord of heaven and earth, he does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served as you serve your gods, as though he needed anything from those to whom he gave life and breath. From one, God has made every nation, he has designated when and where people have lived in the hope that they might seek the one, true God. We all seek, we all strive for knowledge of the divine, yet he is not that far from us. As your own poets say, ”˜in him, we live and move and have our being.' Now, we are his offspring and because of that we ought not think of him as something we can fashion from human imagination in gold, silver or stone. Indeed, there has been a lot of ignorance about God, but now he wants us to turn, to discover truth and reality, for the Lord has fixed a day in which all will be judged by the one who has been appointed and he has given assurance of these things by raising Jesus from the dead (17:24-31).”
Here, Paul is not addressing Judaeans or Jews of the diaspora. Neither is he addressing the Samaritans who had derived partially from the same ancestry and belief system. Here, Paul is addressing Gentiles, Greeks, free men of Athens and philosophers. Nowhere here does Paul quote the sacred scrolls, the Greeks had no reverence for them. Nowhere does Paul use rabbinic-style arguments that he uses elsewhere, no one would have got those either. Instead, Paul draws on what he has observed in the city, he utilizes “a hook” in terms of their acceptance of a god that they did not know and he invites them to think about the God who has created all. He connects using the words of their own philosophers. He argues quite logically as to why God can never be represented by idols derived from human imagination and then, once he has their attention, he gets into the coming judgment and the good news of resurrection. Here, Paul has the core of the gospel message about God but it is couched in very different assumptions, thoughts and words for this educated, Gentile audience. Just like editors of bible translations gear their bibles toward a certain audiences, Paul packages his message differently depending on those whom he addresses.
There is something to be gained from this insight as we continue to think, this month, about how we might turn the tide of decline in the membership of the mainline church around and rethink the whole notion of bearing witness to Jesus with a sort of evangelism for normal Christians. Over these four weeks, we have drawn on United Church scholars, such as John Webster Grant, who have suggested that we need to return to what is the primary task of the Church in all ages and re-engage our communities in matters of faith. We have noted our own church's Long Range Plan that encourages us to expand our church and our own small part of God's kingdom. Acts 17 invites us to think about how to do that effectively. In some ways, Acts 17 tells us that we should not be trying to engage the Canadian community of 2011 with the kind of message and forms that may have worked in 1911 or in the 50s or 60s. Acts 17, when it is compared with other missionary messages in Acts, suggests that we acknowledge that there are differences between cultures, that the world does change from one place to another and that cultures alter over time. It invites us to recognize again that Canadian culture has changed and unless we re-package the Christian message, the world around us will not really hear us, they do not have the connections to hear.
I used to laugh at the bumper sticker that went around during a 1970s evangelistic campaign. The sticker read, “Jesus is the answer.” It popped up everywhere on bumper stickers, billboards, buttons. Almost every time I saw it, there would be some smart Alec who would say something like, “I didn't know there was a question.” For some of us, it was humorous, but the humour only revealed a deeper truth; that there were many who could look at the bumper stickers and billboards and have no idea what the authors of the program were trying to get across. Even then, our society was losing its Christian memory. It had difficulty connecting the saying, “Jesus is the answer,” with its own reality and world.
In Acts 17, Luke and Paul are telling us that if we are to engage our world now with the good news, we too need to find thoughts and ideas that it understands. We need to be aware of 21st century Canadian culture and its post-modern, pluralistic, multi-faith, secular worldview. We need to find connecting points if we are to make any sense to people as we try to turn the ship of the church around.
I think that is why programmes like the Alpha Course have been quite successful. Nicky Gumbel is continuously developing the program and, if you have ever listened to any of his talks, you will know that he is always connecting what he says with experience, current events, and the thought of popular philosophers, writers, and celebrities. Those things connect with people and let's face it, if the David McMasters of the world go out and tell people to find their voice, it may connect with a few. However, if we could get Colin Firth in here to suggest that Christian people find their voices in the world, that would connect at a whole different level because of our culture's current enthralment with the film, The King's Speech.
You may know of Alice Cooper, one of the early shock-rockers who came to fame in the 70s with songs and stage show featuring heavy, dark make-up, boa constrictors and guillotines. Well shock of shocks, Cooper's dad was a preacher, as his dad before him was a preacher and Cooper himself, quietly, is a Christian. He has avoided so called "celebrity Christianity" because, he says, “It's far too easy to focus on Alice Cooper and not on Christ. I am a rock singer. I'm nothing more than that. I'm not a philosopher. I consider myself low on the totem pole of knowledgeable Christians. So, don't look for answers from me". Yet, when asked by the British Sunday Times newspaper in 2001 how a shock-rocker could be a Christian, Cooper responded "Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's real rebellion.”[1] Now there's a line that could be used at an appropriate time with people who are singing, or still singing, “Schools out for Summer.” That's a connecting point to some people's lives and in finding our voices in our age, we need to follow St. Paul and draw on the culture and the influences of the culture to affect the culture and introduce Jesus and faith. Maybe today, we could use a Kim Kardashian or a Justin Bieber or a Robbie Alomar to do it, depending on who we are speaking with but we need to find connectors to people's lives.
Pushing this even farther, the changes in the culture may also have something to say to us about how we do church. Again, let's face it, the style of church and particularly worship that we do here at Timothy Eaton has an appeal for a certain, small sector of the population. It appeals to people of a certain age and background, people who appreciate form and substance, and a few younger folk with a taste for tradition and music. I would venture to say that if we were to bring 100 young people, say under 25 years of age, in here, in spite of our marvellous product, I would be very surprised if it connected with more than one or two of them. Paul's adjustment of the gospel, same message, different packaging for a different audience and different people, may have something to say to us about how we do church and worship if we are really to turn the corner and be meaningful for this generation.
Now, I don't want you to get rattled and say, “O no, they're going to take away our beloved 11:00, Sunday morning service.” That will not happen, but do we need to think about providing alternatives? As St. Paul had an alternative form of message for a Gentile audience, do we need an alternative form of worship and practice for young families, young adults, the youth of 2011? Do we need worship events where the music is their music? Where the prayers are their prayers? Where the thoughts connect with their culture? In our attempts to turn the corner are we willing to work with change and reach out to a new generation in new generational terms? Where our forefathers and mothers saw a need for young people and established the hugely successful Trident Club in the past. Do we need a 2011 version of the Trident Club and a place in which young people can come for fun and to think about faith? Would we be willing to take the risks and put up with the associated bit of high jinx that it would lead to? J Would we be willing that the message would get through?
Jesus came and he rocked the world of the first disciples when he rose from the dead. He has given us a great message of hope and eternity and I know that for many here and many listening on the radio, it has been so meaningful to us as we have lived out our lives. But if the message is to reach our sons and our daughters and another generation, we need to find our voice and we need to think about how we package the good news so that it connects with people's lives today in a way that it connected with ours previously. Will we embrace that goal? Will we be forward thinking in our approach? Will we again go forth with vigour and zeal and turn the ship of the church around?
May God lead and bless us all as we try!