All I Want for Christmas is a Good Bible

"What bible do you recommend I give as a gift for Christmas? My friend/family member wants a study bible." This is a frequent question I (and perhaps other) pastors field.

Lately, my response has gone like this:

If you want an excellent study bible, you don't need to buy one. The NET Bible is free and includes tons of hypertext study resources. It's really quite an amazing project and resource. Check it out.

However, if you want to get an actual, hefty study bible, and if you want the translation we currently use for the lectionary readings in worship, then I recommend the HarperCollins Study Bible. I personally love my sturdy Oxford Annotated NRSV, but the HarperCollins has more compendious notes. It's really good. There's one other study bible in NRSV that many of my colleagues recommend, called the New Interpreter's Study Bible. That's also a good choice.

If you are interested in study and devotional bibles in other translations, the most recommended resources from my colleagues include the NLT Life Application Study Bible, the Lutheran Study Bible, or the NIV Life Application Study Bible. Although I should be an advocate for the Lutheran Study Bible, I think the notes are far too sparse for anyone looking for a study bible. However, the margins are big and white, so there is a lot of space to write notes.

If you are serious about the languages, consider the NET Greek-English Bible, or buy a bible software package like Accordance (for the Mac) or Bibleworks (for that other kind of computer).

Olivetree also has a free app that lets you read the bible and study materials on your various devices.

And then, while you're at it, remember that there are more translations of the Bible into English than there are language groups that don't yet have a bible in their heart language. So a good gift for someone who wants a bible might also be a contribution to Lutheran Bible Translators or Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Finally, I'm currently reading and evaluating a new translation of the Bible, the Common English Bible. So far I quite like the translation, and would even say that, other than the NET translation, it's the first translation I've read that might usurp the NRSV in my pantheon of favorite translations.

Neko Case on John the Baptist

"John Saw That Number"

(no chords)
Old John the baptist, old John divine
Leather harness round his line
His meat was locust and honey
Wild honey lord, wild honey

D
John saw that number
Way in the middle of the air
Cryin' holy, holy to the Lord

D
Old John the baptist, old John divine
Frogs and snakes are gonna get John this time
                                 Bm
God told the angel "go see about John"
D
So he flew from the pit with the moon round his waist
Gathered wind in his fists so the stars round his wrists
       G     A           D
Cryin' holy, holy to the lord

D
Read the revelations, you'll find him there
Third chapter, fourth verse where he said unto me
"There's a beast that rose out of the sea"
Ten crowns, ten crowns
On his horns write "blasphemy"
Bm
John couldn't read it (John couldn't read it)
D
Get on repeat it
Bm
John couldn't read it
G     A           D
Holy, holy to the Lord

(two, three, four, one...)

D
There was a man, a pharisee
Who came by night to meet him
Said "I know thy teacher came from God cause no man can do such miracles
                              G          D
Without the lord (without the lord) to entreat him"
                                 Bm
God told the angel "go see about John"
      D
So he flew from the pit with the moon round his waist
Gathered wind in his fists and the stars round his wrists
       G     A           D
Cryin' holy, holy to the Lord
G     A           D
Holy, holy to the Lord
G     A           D
Holy, holy to the Lord...

Why I Disagree with Dr. Paulson's version of Radical Lutheranism

First of all, I benefited much under the tutelage of Dr. Paulson in a correspondence independent study I took with him while I served as a missionary in Slovakia. His teaching and writing is provocative and clarifying. He teaches in the tradition of a theologian for whom I have immense respect--Gerhard Forde.

Therefore, it pains me to have to say what I need to say next.

I think his project is wrong-headed and is potentially hurting the theological witness of the Lutheran church.

Let me offer just two examples from his new book, Lutheran Theology (Doing Theology).

Here is the first sentence of his book: "Lutheran theology begins perversely by advocating the destruction of all that is good, right, and beautiful in human life."

I'm going to assume that, like most authors, Paulson gave considerable thought to this sentence, re-writing it a few times and re-reading it often to ensure it carried the weight of what would follow.

But my question, would Lutheran theologians generally speaking identify with such a statement? I for one would not. Certainly, Lutheran theologians would be united in condemning anything that is considered good, right, and beautiful that is offered as some kind of system for attaining righteousness before God.

But Paulson pushes the notion out to the ontological level, as if God works against rather than with the grain of the universe.

Having made this claim, Paulson then hunkers down in the next problematic notion, which is that the only thing that will repair the breach is oral proclamation. Now, I'm all for oral proclamation. I'm a preacher, and I inherently like any theology that makes such wide claims for the office I occupy. And I do think there is a lot going on in preaching, including the forgiveness of sins in Christ's name.

I am especially happy for the Fordean insight (that Paulson continues) that preaching "we are justified for Christ's sake apart from the works of the law" is absolutely central to what it is the church is and does. And I am radically in favor of the "atonement" theory that arises from this context, "What shall we do? Nothing. Listen to Christ, whom you killed; the Father raised him from the dead, and he has come to give you the sole source of new, eternal life by forgiving sin."

That's good, good stuff.

However, I just do not buy the argument that creation, the good, true and beautiful are "nothing" while sermons are "everything." Where do sermons come from, after all? They don't arise ex nihilo. They are preached by a preacher, in a context, inspired by the Holy Spirit and centered in the scriptures, aimed at doing something "new."

I just don't think doing something "new" requires, in God's economy, the complete destruction of the "old." Perhaps that is our main difference, and why I disagree vigorously with the approach.

The second problematic moment in Paulson's new book is his summary of four episodes in the development of Lutheran theology. He walks briefly through Lutheran orthodoxy (Gerhard), pietism (Spener, Arndt, Kant), biblical eschatology (Schweitzer), and finally the existential moment (Bultmann). Of these four movements Paulson has this to say, "They all developed a treatment of the law as a way of avoiding the conclusion that salvation was death first and only then resurrection unto new life."

Really? It's that simple? If it is, it seems like our work has been made easy, for there is very little reason to engage any of those theologians, other than to read them as negative example.

There is something simply too clean about all of this. It's definitely analytical and crisp. But it lacks humanity somehow. I could probably go further, but I will conclude with my counter-sentence to Paulson's opening salvo.

Lutheran theology need not be defined as attack. Instead of perversely advocating destruction, Lutheran theology can simply clarify what has always been at its center, "Lutheran theology declares the righteousness of God (and our being made righteous) through faith apart from the works of the law."

John the Forerunner

Audio of sermon for December 4th, 2011, at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Bix 7 in QC figures prominently, as does the patience of God as salvation. Advent blessings to all.