Nonconformist Chronicles

Do You Know What Your Children Are Reading?

I'll return to my current ongoing series in the near future, but for now I will pause to share something that has been troubling our family. This may be longer than usual, but if you bear with me it may be enlightening. I would value the opinions of some fellow Christians on how you recommend we deal with this.

Our son, Justin, attends a public school where his fifth grade reading class consists of reading groups in which children read book chapters independently and then come together as a group with the teacher to discuss and share their responses. They also provide written responses.

One day Justin came home lamenting that his most recent assignment had a lot of "bad words" in it. My wife, Gretchen, being a responsible parent, chose to investigate. So in one evening she read the book through to discover twelve occurrences of "butthead," two occurrences of "maxi-pad," (used as a name), and at least one occurrence of "turd." The book also described bullies who threatened to "slice and dice" their victims and one instance of murder in which a four-year-old child watches his mother be strangled to death by the boy's father. 

We found it appalling that such literature was being assigned in a public school and that our tax dollars are paying for it. So we requested that Justin be moved to another reading group. Before long he was reading a book called "Travel Team" about a traveling basketball team. Again, he mentioned bad words.

So again, Gretchen investigated. Reading yet another book in one sitting she noted the following occurrences of crude or profane language:

• The names of God and Christ as bywords including the term g--d---
• A reference to "kissing butt"
• two occurrences of the "S" word
• Nine occurrences of the word p--s
• Two occurrences of "ass" (and not in reference to a donkey)
• At least one occurrence of the "B" word.
• One occurrence of "rat's ass"
• The usual "H" and "D" words
• The phrase "stick it up his a--"
• The phrase "Screw em'"

And this is only a partial list.

So naturally we requested that he not finish that book. So he was assigned yet another book called "The Egypt Game" in which a group of elementary school children trespass on a man's property without permission, where they meet to imitate religious Egyptian rituals. They pretend to be priests, fashioning their own idols, making sacrifices, and using a tuna can of "holy water." The book's stated purpose (in so many words) is to discourage judgmentalism and to encourage a tolerance for diversity. The book concludes with a two chapter preview of the author's follow-up in which the kids are reading palms and telling fortunes.

When Gretchen lamented the use of bad words in these books, one of the district's supposed literary "experts" replied that it is "open to interpretation." But Gretchen objected that if it is open to interpretation, then why does page 24 of the school handbook forbid the possession or use of profanity by students on campus? The school obviously has some standard of what they consider profanity and what they do not. They make a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate language. So why are they allowing a double standard in which kids are assigned books with language that they could be expelled for repeating?

The reading teacher claims that since our child reads above his grade level, the content we're complaining about is just unavoidable. And she says that in middle school it's even worse! 

There have been some concessions in reponse to our grievances. It is claimed that a couple of books have been pulled from the book room due to our complaints. Gretchen has also been told that she has the right to read and approve any future books before they are assigned to our child. He has even been given the option to do independent study.

Gretchen toured the book room and was asked for her opinion on another book called "My Brother Sam is Dead." Multiple copies are in the reading room, so Gretchen borrowed one and read it (It has not, to my knowledge, been assigned).

The book is historical fiction, set in the Revolutionary War era. There are multiple depictions of graphic violence including decapitation, bayoneting, and a detailed description of execution by firing squad at close range. Religious people are portrayed as hypocrites. Offensive language includes the following:

• The names of God and Jesus as bywords, including occurrences of g--d---
• "Bastard" is used twice.
• S.O.B is used once (and not the initials)
• Someone is told to go to hell

We have inquired about the school's criteria for choosing age-appropriate books. They depend largely on a website called "commonsensemedia.org". This website recommends "My Brother Sam is Dead" for eleven-years-old and up. We disagree. Any book that would be rated R or PG-13 if it were a movie, is not appropriate for eleven-year-olds.

Gretchen argued that impressionable children might be influenced by these books to repeat language, imitate acts of violence, or be troubled by the subject matter. She was told "You know your child" as if the extent of the problem is our immature or overly scrupulous child.

This isn't just about our child! That is far from the extent of the issue. This is about our society. Why should we, as tax payers, not be able to trust our public schools to not assign profanity and R rated subject matter to our children? This is a problem our parents and grandparents did not have to worry about. When we were kids we read Beverly Cleary, E. B. White, and Laura Ingalls Wilder. Where have all the decent authors gone? Is it really true that all literature for young readers has become off color or offensive? If the new stuff is all so bad, why can't we just assign the old stuff?

Moreover, my wife should not have to preview everything her son reads in public school. We have been told that she has that right and that our son could even do independent study. The problem with that is that we already work hard to pay our taxes. If we had time to home school we would not have enrolled in public school. As tax payers our interests should be considered.

And furthermore, as tax payers, our child should not be exposed to literature that violates our value system. Our child should not be assigned literature that defames or profanes the name of the God we worship. This is an offense to us. And yes, I know, any selection will offend someone. But there are some lines that no one is supposed to cross. Had these reading assignments profaned the name of Allah, this would have been considered inappropriate. If any minority were portrayed as stereotypically as Christians, this would have been considered inappropriate. But Christians are fair game as the only group of people that it's okay to offend. Double standard.

This isn't an attempt to impose our values or religion on others. The problem is that others' values are being forced upon our children. The stated purpose of "My Brother Sam is Dead" is to ask, "Could the U. S. have made its way without all the agony and killing?" The question, in other words, is to ask whether the Revolutionary War was even necessary. The book will certainly make you think twice before supporting any war effort. It's point is well taken. But it isn't much of a leap to interpret this as anti-war propaganda. Now we're even questioning the Revolution, which some would consider a challenge to patriotism itself.

I have no problem with an objective approach to the war issue, but do our kids get both sides? Do they also hear from conservative authors who applaud the veterans and who consider the Revolution to have been necessary to grant the freedoms the liberals claim to hold so dear?

And why can a book describing pagan worship be assigned in the name of tolerance and diversity? If the kids in that book had been playing church and observing the Christian sacraments, I'd guess that book would not be in the book room. Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices are the one thing we cannot tolerate. I'm not saying we should teach religion in the schools. I'm saying that if we're truly going to claim religious neutrality, then let's not use pagan or ancient religions to make a point about tolerance. Let's give everyone equal time or no time at all.

It seems that today's literature for young readers is one sided. It leans heavily toward irreligion, crudity, and liberalism. How are these books selected? Well, I mentioned the common sense media site, but the district also depends on recommendations in publishers' reviews. I noticed that some of the books in question are highly recommended by the New York Times and the American Library Association (ALA)--two of the most liberal institutions on the planet. I certainly don't want those guys influencing American children's reading assignments.

In case you haven't figured it out, there is an agenda at work here. Specific public schools may either be willing participants or clueless. But the agenda is to propagandize America's youth with the liberal agenda--to raise up an entire generation who shares their values.

This became very clear as I explored the ALA's website. One of their big causes is their ongoing campaign against censorship of any kind. They complain that each year books are pulled from school libraries because of parental complaints. They keep an ongoing list of most challenged books each year. They consider it a victory when they can partner with so-called civil liberties groups in blocking the pulling of these books. They argue that our young people deserve the right to make up their own minds about things.

And that is exactly my point. But how can young people make up their minds if they are only exposed to the liberal side? See, the liberals have their own brand of censorship. I doubt that many of them would approve of "Little Black Sambo" or "Uncle Remus" in the school library. But hey, if we're going to be consistent, anything goes! The ALA hates censorship, but they aren't above trying to censor parents and conservative tax payers.      

What I'm arguing is not censorship in the true sense. I'm not saying we prevent what can be written, or published, or that we burn the books in question. I'm saying that at the very least these books should have ratings just like the Hollywood movies. And of course the ALA is fighting that with everything they've got, arguing that it prejudices readers against certain materials. My point is that it could protect children from what I consider inappropriate.

At the very least I think schools could do a better job screening. If the commonsense website is their filter of choice, they should look at the summary of the book's content and not just the recommended age level. Anything with profanity, sexuality, or graphic violence should not be considered in a public school--at least not in elementary school or middle school.

What I would like to know is this: Do most parents know what their kids are reading? And do they care? Why have I been so out-of-the-loop on this? Why have I never heard about the kind of stuff they're assigning in elementary or middle schools?

Why has there not been more of a public outcry? Hasn't anybody made this their cause? I know that evangelicals have battled homosexual marriage, abortion, and pornography. They have provided online movie reviews for Christians. But are any Christian groups watchdogging children's literature? Who are the experts? And if one cares to fight this politically, who do they call for help?

And the last question. Should we even bother to fight it or just throw up our hands and conclude that change is not possible? How much good has Dobson's war on pornography really accomplished?

I've never been much of an activist and have always been fairly apolitical. And yet I feel some responsibility as an American tax payer, in a government by the people, to make my voice heard and at least get the word out. But where does one begin and is it worth it? Is it naive to expect sweeping reform? But if we can just influence one school board member, one principal, or one superintendent, or inform one parent, is it worth it? Have we made a difference? Or should we simply retreat to the private schools and let the liberals run things unchallenged?

What do some of you Christians think?      

The Changing Values of the Church # 5

The Value of the Word, Part One

It's mind-boggling to consider the amount of money some people will spend, the lines in which they will stand, and the inconvenience they will endure, all in the name of sports. This year I attended my first Ohio State football game. As we approached the stadium, fans weren't hard to spot because so many were wearing team colors. Many were having tail gate parties, some of which began as early as five in the morning. Outside the stadium some without tickets were in tents, with generators set up to power their TVs and satellite dishes on tripods. It reminded me of worshipers gathered in the Court of the Gentiles because they couldn't get into the inner courts of the temple.

Hold on a minute! Did I say worshipers? Is sports a religion? With some, yes. One's God, or idol, is whatever one makes a priority. It's been said that the easiest way to identify your object of worship is to examine your check book register and your day planner. Wherever your discretionary time and money goes, that is your religion. Now I'm not saying all sports fans are idolaters or that there is anything wrong with being a sports fan. But some are excessive.

There aren't too many revivals, gosepl meetings, or seminars on Scripture anymore. Some churches have canceled Sunday and/or Wednesday night meetings because the people just won't come out.

• Some could not possibly make it through a weekly one hour Bible class, but they're parked in front of the TV three hours straight to watch football.
• Some are unable to locate key Scriptures, but they can cite sports statistics .
• Some are simply too busy to volunteer for church programs, but they can make tremendous sacrifice for their kids' sports programs.
• Some make contributions to the church that by no means reflect their prosperity, but they can somehow afford to be season ticket holders.
• Some will endure all kinds of weather to watch sports, but they won't drive to church in a snow flurry.
• Some will unashamedly walk out in the middle of a worship assembly to attend a sporting event, but how many will leave before a game is over to attend a church event?
• Some would never travel for a church retreat and would never dream of using vacation time to attend a lectureship or worship conference, but they will travel for sporting events and tournaments.

Each year parents shell out hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to keep their kids in sports. It's common for folks to make an early exit from the assembly due to sports commitments. It's common for folks to miss an entire season of Sunday worship while a sports season is going on.

Now sports season isn't all that people get excited about. I saw people literally camped out on the sidewalk of Target when Playstation 3 came out. People lined up in bookstores at midnight for the Harry Potter books. On the day after Thanksgiving, the first official shopping day of the Christmas season, people were out at four in the morning standing in lines 150 yards long.

• But who would stand in line to hear the Word of God preached?
• Who would adjust their personal budget to generously support those who preach the gospel?
• Who, these days, would tolerate a sermon that runs the length of their favorite sitcom?
• Who would sit outside enduring the elements (as they do at ballgames) to hear a sermon?
• Who would travel to hear Scripture taught?

Paul charged Timothy with preaching the Word. He told him to be prepared in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:2). As I write this it is football season, deer season, and the holiday season. But in our current church climate, is Scripture in season or out of season?  

The Changing Values of the Church # 4

The Value of Attendance, Part Four

Many of my in-laws' generation prioritized corporate worship. Nothing stood in the way of this commitment. Today's generation doesn't seem to share that commitment and there are a number of reasons. There are the modern idols of individualism, family, and sports. There are those who've given up on lifeless assemblies that are mostly an exercise in irrelevance. Some congregations bear part of the blame for being too lazy or stubborn to connect with today's culture.

But there are more complex issues surrounding the contrast between the previous generations' commitment and the current generation's lax attitude toward church. I think many of the previous generation were committed for all the right reasons. But others went to extremes and still do. I've known of people sliding to worship during a blizzard and showing up on Wednesday night under a green tinted sky while tornado sirens were blowing. I do believe one can be too committed to attendance. There is such a thing as making too close an association between attendance and faithfulness.

I think one reason some have been committed to attendance is because they've been  afraid not to be. It's been drilled into them that God is not pleased with those who "miss services." Hebrews 10:25 has been the standard proof text for never missing an assembly. Never mind that the text was originally deterring Jewish Christians from leaving the church altogether for the synagogue.

Now I do believe there is a correlation between corporate worship and spiritual growth. We need the assembly. The assembly is intended to be transformative. I am troubled that the pendulum seems to have swung from making attendance the litmus test of faithfulness to viewing the assembly as negotiable. Neither extreme is healthy.

A reason for the swing is that people aren't afraid anymore. They've learned about grace (or think they have) and decided that they just might not go to hell for missing worship. In a comment on the second post of this series, my friend Darin summed it up well. He said,

...I think we told people they were legally bound to come whenever the doors were opened. Then they discovered that it wasn't a law, well, they were trained in legalism well enough to know that if you don't legally have to be there then legally it is okay to stay home. So grace for many has become nothing more than legalism lite and they don't even know it.

The problem is that legalistic motives have not been replaced by better reasons for commitment to corporate assembly. The problem is an anemic ecclesiology. In our individualistic culture church is considered negotiable which leads to attendance being viewed as negotiable.

A lack of commitment to the assembly is not fundamentally an attendance problem. It's a lack of theological understanding in regard to why church is vital to our spiritual walk. Many have not made the connection between the church and the gospel or between the church and Jesus. Church leaders have the task of helping connect these dots.

A previous generation may have taught that the church is an institution that we're commanded to be a part of simply because God said so. Jettisoning legalism has left a void that needs to be filled with a healthy theology of church. So what is church, really? As cliche as it sounds, we need to go back to the Bible and ask these questions anew.           

The Changing Values of the Church # 3

The Value of Attendance, Part Three

My previous post identified some idols of Western culture that keep people from the assembly. But this isn't all that keeps folks away. Believe it or not, some assemblies are indeed boring. When you step across the threshold into some assemblies it's like you've stepped into a time machine back into the 1950s. Nothing has changed.

The songs are antiquated. The preaching may be an irrelevant tirade against denominationalism or change agents. It may be a rattling of many chain references (out-of-context) to defend whatever sacred cow the preacher has selected for this week. But nothing too helpful for life out in the trenches.

The seats are hard and the surroundings dull. The brown auditorium paneling has not been updated since the seventies. The cinder block classrooms are as inviting as the walls of the county jail. The children's classes assume that every child is wired with the same learning style. Crossword puzzles, worksheets, and memorization rule. Nothing too hands-on. 

There are no pictures, banners, or images--certainly no crosses. In some churches there is still no multi-media unless you count a microphone. Mothers wrestle their preschoolers, missing most of the sermon because the church refuses to do a children's program or to even have an attended nursery. Visitors are sometimes confronted by the dress code police.

And we expect the people of this generation to come out for that? Yet many churches refuse to change. The disinterested are simply written off as those who don't love the truth. Any who plead for change are simply accused of wanting to "entertain" or to compete with those churches down the street.

There is nothing wrong with church being relevant or even contemporary. We simply must speak the language of contemporary people if we want to reach them and keep them. And yes, you can dumb things down to the point that there is no substance left. And no, some people still won't come no matter what you do. But why intentionally drive people away? Perhaps more would value attendance if they felt a connection to real life and to the world they live in. Perhaps more would be interested if the church addressed their felt needs (sounds like what Jesus would do).

We are told that worship is all about God and not about us. It's our duty to be there without always asking, "What's in it for me?" That is true to some extent. There were mornings I've had to drag myself to even the most relevant churches. I just wasn't in the mood to be there, but it was the right thing to do. But when duty is consistently the only motivation, it's hard to stay motivated.

It's the responsibility of churches and their leaders to show the relevance of the gospel to everyday life. While worship is, in a sense, all about God, it is also to be transformative. God needs nothing from us, but we need to worship. We need the regular reminder of who should be at the center of our universe. Worship that speaks to who and where we are is indeed transformative.         

The Changing Values of the Church # 2

The Value of Attendance, Part Two

I appreciate everyone's comments on my previous post. As opposed to responding to each comment individually, I have been processing and assimilating them in hopes of addressing some in this current post.

I feel the pain of those who've endured "boring" assemblies or at least assemblies where you leave feeling malnourished. Perhaps you've attended a church where the singing was not very inspiring and the preaching had little connection to real life. Maybe you've gone to church for fellowship, realizing that any spiritual food will come from other resources. Or even worse, maybe you've attended solely because you felt duty bound. 

But then you feel guilty for being a worship critic. Hasn't it been pounded into us that worship isn't supposed to be entertaining? It's not supposed to be about us, right? Aren't we told that we'll only get out of it as much as we put into it? So should you feel shallow and guilt ridden if worship just isn't doing it for you?

While boring, irrelevant assemblies could be a problem, I don't think that's the main reason for the current devaluing of attendance. I've worshiped in churches that were anything but boring. The commitment to attendance was just as lax among the membership there as anywhere else.

Part of the problem is the idolatries of Western culture. First, there is the idolatry of individualism. Inherent within the very meaning of church is "assembly." The Greek word ekklesia does not mean "called out." That's a definition based on etymology which is a ridiculous way to do word studies. Words must be defined in terms of how they were used in a given period. In the first century, ekklesia meant "assembly." Jesus has called us out of our individualism into being God's gathered people (I've got to get Bobby's book).

Individualism is one of the idols of Western civilization. We're not accustomed to thinking in terms of corporate terms as the Eastern mind does. The concepts of corporate solidarity or communal identity is foreign to our programming. When an institution apologizes for past racism, before the current administration was even born, we're puzzled. We're as puzzled if a family apologizes for the behavior of their ancestors. We think only of individual choice and responsibility.

People forever justify lack of church loyalty with phrases like "I can worship all by myself" or "It's an individual thing."  Try arguing from the Book of Acts that worship was an individual thing. In the Scripture it's not "My God and I" but "Our God and us." We've taken the "personal relationship with Jesus" thing way too far. This language is entirely absent from the Scripture. This isn't to say that a personal relationship is unimportant, but the corporate aspect of church trumps individualism in the Bible.

Another Western idolatry is that of family. The defense we often hear for lack of attendance is that "family comes first" as if an unchurched parent being in town or a kids' overbooked schedule is a nobler cause than worship of the Almighty in holy community. But family does not come first. Jesus said, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). Is it really  a stretch to equate love for Jesus with attendance? Perfect attendance is certainly no proof that one loves Jesus, but if we do love him, then we'll share his priorities.

And of course there is the idolatry of sports. We'll go to church when there's not a sporting event. We can take church for granted because after all, it will always be there when we're done with our playing. Never mind the fact that multiple congregations have closed their doors in recent years due to lack of involvement. And besides, sports builds character, commitment, and teamwork. Kids couldn't possibly learn those lessons from consistent exposure to the Scripture. If we really want to do our kids a favor, we'll teach them the priority of serving in the kingdom.   

The Changing Values of the Church # 1

The Value of Attendance, Part One

My wife, Gretchen, grew up in Kansas. But she never saw The Wizard of Oz all the way through until she met me. She had even played the good witch in a school play, but she had never seen the movie from beginning to end. I finally showed it to her on video.

But prior to the days of DVRs or VCRs viewers were held hostage to the schedules of broadcast television. Gretchen had not seen The Wizard of Oz because it always aired on a Sunday or Wednesday night. And guess where her family was on those nights. They were at church.

Not only were they at church on Wednesday nights, but those were the days of Gospel meetings that ran five or six nights. Gretchen's parents were there every night--along with their children. Her dad was not even a minister or an elder.

Those were the days before Children's Worship or Bible Hour. There were no puppet shows or Veggie Tales videos as an alternative to the Gospel Meeting. Gretchen might not have walked to school uphill in a blizzard, but she sat on hard pews through fifty-five minute sermons, followed by twenty-six verses of Just As I Am (without any praise team), followed by announcements, followed by Brother Jone's prayer--delivered in fluent King Jamese.

In those days it didn't matter if it was a school night, or who had homework, or whether the Jayhawks were playing, or whether it was Superbowl Sunday. Gretchen's family was at church whenever the doors were opened--and they were opened more frequently in that bygone era. No one signed up for anything that conflicted with church. And fewer things did when the culture was somewhat more accommodating to religion. But if an activity required Wednesday night practice or Sunday games, church kids just didn't sign up. Families even went to church on vacation.

Now this generation looks back on that in protest, "But that's extreme! That's over the top!" We're tempted to judge that previous generation as legalistic. And some folks were. Admittedly, in those days there was far too much equating of "attendance" with "faithfulness." But I contend that some in that previous generation were not legalistic, but heroic.

Remember the hero in Chariots of Fire. It's the true story of Olympian Eric Liddell. He refused to compete in the 100 meters--his best event--because the race would be run on a Sunday. He would not violate his Christian convictions even with the whole world watching. He would not even do it for country.

A previous generation in the church felt that same way about Sunday. It was not viewed as our day, but as the Lord's Day--the anniversary of Christ's resurrection. And what we did with that day was non-negotiable. Why don't we feel that way anymore? Have we become more enlightened than the previous generation?

Yes, there have always been those with legalistic motives. But I think some of the previous generation were simply trying to teach their kids that the Lord comes first and that the world doesn't revolve around our schedules or our comforts, but around the Lord and his Word. The value of church attendance was one way to practice this--an example of being faithful in the small things in preparation for the bigger challenges. Perhaps a goal was communicating to children that the Christian faith is not a religion of accommodation and compromise, but of commitment and cross-bearing.

So what do you think? Was attendance typically overvalued by the previous generation? Is it undervalued in the church today?      

A New Series

Well, here it is over a month since my last post. Since our thousand-mile move I've only posted three times. I never intended to be one of those guys who posted only sporadically with months of hiatus in-between. On the other hand, I want to write because I have something to say, not because I feel that I have to say something. Life is still busy, but we're finally gaining on the transitional business (although there is still more to go) and I'm beginning to learn the ropes of this new job and my way around the area. So back to blogging before everyone takes me off their blogroll or sidebar links.

I do find value in blogging. I've said before that it's a great way to keep up with friends, make new friends, expand one's teaching ministry, and learn from others. I feel a bit defensive when I hear people (usually in a condescending tone) say "Must be nice to have all that time to read and write blogs. Wish I had all that time to waste"--as if to imply that the person saying this is far superior in their use of time. But I can think of ways these folks don't exactly spend their time the way I would either. So there!

Anyway, this time I really intend to be back (I know. I've said that before). But I have a few ideas for posts and series of posts floating around in my head.

My days in full time ministry have so far consisted of two conservative/traditional congregations and two more progressive/non-traditional congregations. There is no question that the church has changed and is changing--in some ways for the better--but there remains wisdom in the old cautionary adage about not throwing the baby out with the bath water. So in the coming weeks I'll be offering some of my observations regarding "The Changing Values of the Church."

How do I perceive the church's values to be changing, or to have changed, in regard to attendance, scripture, preaching, or worship? I may even think of other categories or maybe there are some you'd like me to cover. The first installment should be posted within the next twenty-four hours. Stay tuned. This should be fun.

(Disclaimer: The church building pictured is NOT where I preach--just in case you were wondering.)            

Eat this Book: Reflections and Citations

I have finally finished reading Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book. This book will make you want to read the Bible. It isn't so much about a method for reading Scripture as it is about an approach to reading Scripture. Peterson encourages a "spiritual" reading as opposed to reading for mere information or data, as most of us are trained to read other literature. Peterson reflects,

Among our ancestors reading involved a seeking after wisdom, becoming a mature person. With us it is more likely to be a retrieval of information so that we can answer a question or do a job. Spiritual reading is not contemptuous of information, but it has wisdom for its goal: becoming true and good, not just knowing about the facts of life or how to change a tire (p. 177).

The chapters are divided into three larger sections beginning with a section called "Eat this Book." I was thrilled to see that in this section, Peterson put in a good word for exegesis, urging that readers pay attention to genre, narrative, and even commentaries.

Peterson warns against several misuses of the Bible, including a thoroughly subjective approach that primarily serves the reader's wants, needs, and feelings; any agenda driven approach; or any reading that neglects context.   

The second section titled "Lectio Divina," I assumed would be urging some kind of reader-response approach that tends to disengage the mind. From Peterson, I should have known better.

Peterson defines lectio divina ("spiritual reading") as a way of reading that frequents the company of friends who are listening to, accompanying, and following Jesus...A way of reading that guards against depersonalizing the text into an affair of questions and answers, definitions and dogmas...A way of reading that abandons the attempt to take control of the text as if it were helpless without our help...(pp. 85, 90).

A review from Publishers Weekly, cited on Amazon.com, said that Peterson's exposition of lectio divina is one of the fullest to appear in recent years. Peterson aptly describes the four elements which comprise lectio divina: Lectio (we read the text), meditatio (we meditate on the text), oratio (we pray the text), and contemplatio (we live the text).   

In the third section, "The Company of Translators," the warning is against venerated language that keeps the Word of God out of the common street vernacular. With Holy Scripture, many have assumed that the language used must be "elevated, stately, and ceremonial" (p. 160). Against this assumption, Peterson gives a brief history of translation, comparing Scripture to its contemporary literature from Ugarit and Oxyrhynchus to demonstrate that Scripture was originally written in the common language of the common people.

Translators should follow suit. They did so from the time when Levites "gave the sense" of the Hebrew Scripture to Aramaic speaking Jews (Neh. 8:8; Peterson, 125), to the translation of the Septuagint, to the efforts of Luther and Wycliffe. But the King James Version departed from the common vernacular, choosing more elevated language.

Having demonstrated the shortcomings of literal Bible translation, Peterson speaks "in praise of paraphrase" recalling how his own translation, The Message, came about. While I have no problem with The Message per se it is actually more of a paraphrase than a translation. I personally have little praise for the paraphrase except as a commentary on the Scripture. I think the dynamic equivalent approach to translation, described in Stuart and Fee's How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth is the happy medium between the extremes of literalese and paraphrase.

In all, Peterson has done a great work with Eat This Book. You'll have to read slowly to absorb a few of his cumbersome run-on sentences, but the content is very rich. This is the second in a trilogy by Peterson on spirituality. Not only does this book make me want to read the Bible, but also the other volumes of the series.      

Gettting Out of the Starting Gate

Thanks to all who've continued to keep tabs on this blog and to all who've anticipated my return to the blogosphere. It's great to have faithful readers, even when I'm not writing. I never intended to stop writing. I've just been busy with other things. But this time I'm REALLY back, with another post or two planned for the very near future!

Having come to Ohio the last week of June, we stayed in the church rent house for just over a month before moving again. We're now in the house we bought, which we love. It's two-story with a finished basement. But I'm terribly frustrated that after being there just over a month, we're still living out of too many boxes. We still don't have everything in its place, we still cannot park a car in the garage, and we still haven't bought a living room sofa. Everything is moving painfully slow for an obsessive perfectionist like me.

Since our arrival, there has been an enormous amount of personal, transitional business--especially when you move twice in six weeks. I've also busied myself getting acclimated to the new job over the past couple of months. Here are some things I've done over the last ten weeks or so:

• Participation in the Fourth of July Parade and annual township festival.
• Teaching and "acting" at VBS.
• Speaking at nursing home worship.
• Visiting some of our senior members.
• Recreating and hanging out with a number of members.
• Preaching at an area wide worship assembly with attendees from at least five area congregations.
• Teaching a class at a regional congregation.
• Attendance at the area preacher's meeting (where I briefly met fellow blogger, Jeff Slater).
• Going to my first Monday Night Football fellowship (It's my job, after all).
• Attendance at my first Ohio State football game (mandatory for researching the local culture).
• Starting a new Sunday morning class on Philippians.
• Getting lost almost everywhere I go.

So having done all that, and having some structure in place for my new ministry, here are some things I intend to reincorporate into my routine as nonnegotiables:

• Morning prayer
• Quality time with the wife and kids (sometimes just the wife and sometimes just one or both kids)
• Reading for personal development, spiritual formation, and vocational effectiveness (not just for preaching sermons)
• Writing and reading blogs to both encourage and to be encouraged
• Renewed commitment to keeping in touch with family members and friends

I'm not saying these things haven't been happening at all, but how I've longed for a routine in which I could make a greater commitment to these items. I'm hopefully out of the starting gate.

We're Not In Kansas Anymore

I'm back! It's been over a month since my last post because moving a thousand miles across country (and all that goes with it) is very time consuming. I hope to be blogging more frequently in the future and to get back to sharing my thoughts on spiritual and biblical matters.

This picture is the view out the back window of a house we're currently in contract to purchase here in Ohio. We're really excited about this house and closing is scheduled for July 31.

Here is a picture of the caravan that brought us here with vehicles driven by us and by Gretchen's sister and her husband. Their family was a great help to us in this transition taking time out of their lives to travel all the way from New York, to Kansas, to Ohio, and back to New York again.

We're currently residing in a church- owned rent house behind the building until we can close on a home. So we've been living with boxes stacked all around us unpacking only the most essential until we get a permanent address. But the commute to work is great! I just walk through a path in some trees and I'm there.

The work involved getting set up in a new place is comparable to the work involved getting ready to leave an old one. Here are a few things we've been doing over the two weeks since we've been here:

We bought new cell phones, which is different for us since we've never had them before. They do make life very convenient, but there is a learning curve. One of the first things I learned was how to download a song for my personalized ringtone. First things first. I took my phone in for service yesterday because it wasn't working. Turns out I didn't have it turned on.

I spent hours researching which computer to select for the office---one with the needed features while staying within budget. But again there was a learning curve getting on the office network and learning Windows Vista--which isn't quite the monster I heard it was, but does require some adjustment.

Setting up my office was quite a chore, especially with over a thousand books. Getting all the books categorized and alphabetized on the shelves is a laborious endeavor, as any of you preachers who have moved a large library know all too well. I have managed to weed out some and now have 35 books ready to sell to a local used book store.

House hunting is also time consuming. We've toured over a dozen houses before seeing the one that gave us the "Eureka, we've found it!" feeling. But we finally felt it.

Plus there are all the financial decisions and calculations that go into buying a house. I'm also working on some major revisions to my financial portfolio and opening new bank accounts.

We're so far very happy here (not that we expect that to change). We love the area. The conveniences of the city are a short distance away without even leaving the suburbs and there are trees everywhere you look. Forest areas are close by with some awesome city and state parks. As far as the church goes, I think that once we're past the preliminaries and get to know each other I am certainly going to be a fish in water here. This is a loving and open church family and I feel very comfortable preaching for them. I'm praying for and expecting many fruitful years here.