As for the Qur’an, I think you’ll find that Islam is very serious about it in Arabic over any translation. In Christianity, the highest revelation of God is Jesus Christ. In Islam, it is the Qur’an. It IS the revelation of God–in Arabic. In English, the Qur’an is a translation of the revelation of God; it is not the revelation of God.

When it comes to the “historical movement” of the early Church, it was well underway long before the New Testament was canonized by the Church. The New Testament documents had been around for a long time–they had just not yet been collected and “closed.”

The Roman Catholic Church was adamant about only clergy reading and teaching scripture, but that wasn’t until much later. The “official Bible” of the RCC was the Vulgate–the Bible in Latin. The Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome in the late fourth century because more and more were unable to understand the original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament, “koiné Greek” (common Greek) for the New Testament. St. Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin because it was the “common” or “vulgar” language (hence the name–the Vulgate). The intention was certainly to make scripture accessible.

The motivation for Bible translators has almost always been to pursue accuracy and understandability (one notable example being the King James Version, which was motivated by the desire for a royally-endorsed translation to unify Protestants and Catholics in England). Today, that motivation continues as scholars endeavor to understand biblical culture to provide greater context and understanding for the Bible.

It is certainly not impossible to do this. And so we absolutely CAN understand the first century culture and have a better understanding of how to apply biblical teaching to today’s culture. In fact, the application is just as important as the attempt for objective interpretation.

And so when missionaries take the Gospel to other cultures (far and local), the goal is to be as objective about the pure message as possible and apply it to other cultures without damaging the strengths of those cultures.

If I may, to further enhance my understanding and get clarification from you:

You made reference to the Islamic community requiring translation in the official language. First, a Muslim friend of mine actually bought and presented to me as a gift at my asking about the Qur’an. I didn’t ask him to buy it. I just wanted to know where to get a copy. Delightful to receive the gift. My friend indicated that the best translation was definitely Arabic, however, the English translation was almost just as suitable. The only difference, as this Muslim pointed out, was that certain “sensations of knowledge” that are better understood in the original language would be missed in the translation to English. I can actually appreciate that. You can take, in example, our own language, English. When we are cracking jokes or on the completely opposite end of the spectrum, being quite serious in language — often times we use language that infers a particular response to question or statement. These innuendo would not be understood by a new comer to the English language or even one that had immigrated to an English speaking community for several years; such understandings would take many years to realize. The same would apply to a newcomer trying to learn Arabic as a prerequisite to understanding the Qur’an in its complete entirety. The authors of the Qur’an more than likely realized the cultural differences of language meanings would occur. I purport that over the course of that religious movement development, the idea was indoctrinated.

Now this brings me to my second point. In the Original Church, the history is vague. There is nothing that I have read that supports an actual “historical religious movement” until up until the Catholic church instituted the “Word of God”. If I recall my history right, the Catholic church was rather adamant about peoples learning directly from the clergy in their “official” language. What is the difference between a Muslim demanding the official language in contrast to a Catholic? I don’t see any. The only difference was the Eastern side of the world was academically light years ahead of the West and could read, write, do arithmetic, and overall in discovery of excavations from anthropologists show a society well ahead of its own time. This is shown most powerfully in India, (in juxtaposed context for the timeline) where entire cities had quite literally modern conveniences that we would associate with today: Bathrooms (one for each sex), septic systems for waste disposal, highways for route travel and trade, and a host of other magnificent discoveries that quite literally made the West look incredibly stupid for the era.

Finally, in clarification: You write that many missionary movements fail in result of incorporating western culture. Would it really matter whether it was western culture affecting a missionary objective or say that of the Jewish community themselves presenting the gospel? Either way, you end up with people that are going to bring elements of their own culture into the religious teaching. By your own quote, Paul became everything to everybody and I am sure he was quite clear about ensuring he tried to stay strong as a Jew. In modern society, however, the idea of a missionary staying the course of a strict religious teaching is near impossible simply because the world got BIG! Whenever somebody introduces a new concept to another culture, there is always going to be a crossing of cultural influences. Who is to say that the missionaries attempting to convert are not being equally influenced by a culture’s traditions? The west goes to convert yet comes back with influences from all cultures and styles of thinking. In addition, how can the west present the gospel without influences from its own culture if the western culture was never similar to the Original Church? In order to present the Gospel as the first century church did, one needs to understand precisely how the first century church operated. Nobody knows how to do this. It’s the history that was lost, not only from the Christian beliefs, but from, I dare say, EVERY SINGLE religious movement. And yes, I don’t have proof. But, when I look at the context of religious history, two main super powers come to the forefront. Islam and the Catholic regimes. While neither of these have a proofed timeline, nobody can disagree that these movements strongly affected the outcomes of what we call the “modern world”.

Now…

With the newest and I would dare say strongest (with a measure of proof), is the Evangelical powers that are present in today’s world are the wildest uprising seen since Catholic rule. This movement has not gone unnoticed by any of the Old Churches, both East and West and subsequently has influenced old traditions of old religions. Fast tracking to the modern world, we see old religions (the Catholics and the Islam) adopting the very same evangelical tools that were designed by the modern church. From which brilliant mind came this new system of delivery, I have no clue. What I can state, with reasonable certainty, is that it works! It works so well in as much that old religions have adopted evangelical techniques to encourage new adherents.

I hope you don’t mind me picking your brain and asking your viewpoint.

Adam.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in the Exploration of Church Practice. I have continued to read on and will finish the book in a relatively short period of time. Opinions are certainly worthwhile in an exploration but need to be backed up. One can’t just outright make a statement without at least some proof of their side of the story. For example, were I to simply outright state, “Our Prime Minister is a terrible Prime Minister.” most reasoning minds would naturally ask the question why? And then I give my list of historical proofs… whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant. At least I am providing something to back my mouth up.

In the case of this author, however, Frank makes some really astonishing claims and then just delves into his own personal mindset of justifications without really backing up his claims to historical references.

I am not knocking down his book just to be controversial but when grand statements are being made, they deserve a little proofing, don’t you think? I realize the book is not a history book, however, and I think this is the problem I have with so many pop culture texts is that statements are made without any reference to anything.

Such authors might as well be writing their own personal diary as opposed to an educated and accepted theory of claim. Theory doesn’t mean PROVEN per se. Just that the facts or the experiment repeated time and time over and over again net the same results of conclusion. This is proven up until somebody else can throw a wrench into the whole equation and ends up with a different set of results.

If an author just simply wishes to give their viewpoint, then why attach the idea that there is an Exploration to be had? Just simply name the Book: My Personal Opinion About Such and Such.

I could live with this and the text would become valid. The Title suggests a historical connection to which brought me to purchase the book in the first place.

I think its extremely important that everybody understands at the very minimum their version of history, right or wrong — but gosh darn it, back it up! Even if the proof is wrong, at least you backed it up with some kind of historical or scientific validation.

Adam.

I agree that there is a fair amount of personal and subjective opinions.

The Jews translated their own scripture before anyone else did. The Greek translation of Torah (called the Septuagint) predates Christ.

The first Christians were all Jews, including Paul who said,”To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23).

To Jews and Christians the message is more important than text or language. This would be in contrast to Islam, in which the Qur’an can only, according to Islamic doctrine, be properly interpreted in Arabic by someone for whom Arabic is a first language. Interestingly, where Islam is strong around the world, Arabic culture is perpetuated.

But you ask, “Are we to assume that what God presents to us is the absolute correct without consideration that God also speaks with other cultures in their own languages and subsequently those cultures consider God’s thoughts as equally correct as we consider our own correct?”

Absolutely not. One of the biggest failures in many missionary movements has been the propagation of “Gospel plus western culture” or a “western version of the Gospel.” This is inappropriate.

Your last sentence, I think, encapsulates the gist of the blog post.

The meaning of a language can not be properly translated without corruption. This is true of all languages and has historically been the major source of angers between communities of similar religious views. Do you recall the story when man built this phenomenal tower to the Heavens and God broke it all up by mixing up the languages?

This story has serious implications as to what is culturally relevant. From God’s point of view, at least in the context of this single story, culture was defined at this point. Prior to that, everybody spoke the same language and were one in understanding.

If we are to accept this story as true, then cultural relevance has no meaning. God intended cultural differences. The modern church struggles to make a point to differing view points in result of the mass communication break down from the Old Testament and I argue that in result of the various languages now presented in result of the Tower of Babylon that differences of opinion of God’s meaning would have been seriously different from the other cultures now created by God’s hand.

By this reasoning, how can we Christians assume that our testimony is the “unadulterated” position of God after this magnanimous transformation from God’s own hand? Are we to assume that what God presents to us is the absolute correct without consideration that God also speaks with other cultures in their own languages and subsequently those cultures consider God’s thoughts as equally correct as we consider our own correct?

By far stretch, we’ve seen the results of race classifications and the end is not always pleasant. For our Westernized Church to presume to have the “unadulterated by other cultural translations” is a mistake and will prevent other cultures from ever becoming part of Christ in direct consequence.

Adam.

Fortunately not all my texts are as biased and prejudice as this author really makes his mark with me, 1) In lack of any proof historically (My biggest beef), and in 2) Even in context of the Bible itself the author up to this point fails to make any real connections (assuming of course, that you take the Bible literally).

Now in all fairness, I have read in full the Preface, the Introduction and now deal with the first chapter in earnest. I provide here a summary of my own questions, of which I hope you’ll accept as an outsider’s opinion of value:

I’ll keep it short since everybody really needs to purchase the book in order to follow along with your personal challenges in the book and as I now read, can appreciate your challenges.

I take the more academic view in reason.

Preface (page xvii)- Deductions and Additions, 2nd paragraph – “As the official… God’s Word”.

WHERE!? What was added by the Pharisees?

3rd Paragraph – “The error… opposite direction.” WHICH SEGMENTS?! Just because the Sadducees denied the existance of spirits, angels, the soul, etc doesn’t mean this political group deleted anything from the actual accounts of the Bible. The author requires proof for his statements and none even tantalizes the imagination with a thesis of broad claim with one historical fact. The statement is complete sensationalism.

2nd paragraph (xviii) – “We break the scripture… principles.” HOW!? WHERE!? WHO’S PRINCIPLES?

5th paragraph (xviii) – “I believe the first century church… corrupted.” WHY!? ON WHAT BASIS? How can the author make such a broad sweeping claim without at least one Biblical reference or even better a historical reference proving the first century church was the original and correct theology in comparison to modernized church?

Preface (xix) 2nd Paragraph – “The normative practices… Christians” HOW IS IT NATURAL!? Isn’t God supposed to be supernatural?

A real tick off was here….

Preface, (XX), 1st Paragraph – “Such practices are foreign elements… fourth century”. WHO!!!!? And if we look at the real strong history of the 4th century, one needs to take strong note of the Scandinavian presence now flooding all of Old Europe. A new peoples arrived on the scene and while the Roman and Greeks were the leading authorities at the time, NOBODY discounted the arrival of the “TERROR OF THE NORTH”, otherwise more commonly known as the Vikings. It’s own history in itself presented itself passively on the world scene in the 2nd century, until the beginning of actual conquers of the 3rd century.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHURCH?
Introduction (xxv)

1st paragraph — “Consequently, the motivation for this transistion… with authenticity and fullness.” IN ONE BREATH, the author states to heck with history and “Let the Lord Shine in”… in the next, “Let’s Study and create mortar walls of education…” WHICH IS IT? (proof: page xxvi, 1st parapgraph).

Page xxvii, 1st paragraph, “The recent story of the Christian… Alpha groups.” OR MAYBE society is done with religion all together in favor of real working connections? Just tossing it out there.

Introduction, 2nd paragraph: “… bevy of changes were made… and 19th century” The author presents an awful lot of history to cover when the original thesis was the ROOT of Paganism in Christianity. I don’t think the author can present the rest of the story this concisely in less than 300 pages

page xxix – “For example, we use cell phones,… sandals and togas.” First, on what historical proof! Second, how does modernized convenience make a difference to the practice of the Church?”

2nd paragraph – “Frank Senn notes, “we can not avoid bringing our culture to Church…. integrity of Christian worship from those that detract from it.” SICK, SICK, SICK! BIASED AND PREJUDICED!

HAVE WE REALLY BEEN DOING IT BY THE BOOK?

Page 6, 2nd paragraph:

“Strikingly…. Pagans were those Polytheists who… and Revivalist era.”

NOT ALL PAGANS WERE POLYTHEISTS AND NOT ALL FOLLOWED THE ROMAN EMPIRE!

THE CHURCH BUILDING, Page 10.

4th paragraph – “Rather they reflect the thinking of other religions – Primarily Judaism and Paganism.”

IS HE EQUATING JUDAISM TO PAGANISM!!!!? Is he for real!?

Now….

I’ve just begun this book and the book follows many of the troubles that I’ve had in my own personal studies alongside christian studies. The author just simply lacks any real references, any historical connections, covers too broad a historical timeline for a pop cover publication (1st century to 19th century) to be discussed in any reasonable understanding, is filled with personal and subjective opinions, smacks of propaganda both at the Pagan level and the Christian level and in its main exposition of introduction focuses ONLY on the Roman and Greek methodology, of which for the time period, while playing a very significant role, was NOT THE ONLY MAJOR INFLUENCE on the religious scene.

I think I’ve covered my thoughts and will be the last time that I post of this book. In short, I don’t recommend the book at this time. Perhaps as I finish the mind dulling reading, I might change my mind, but if the author continues on his current thought line, I think by page 50, I’ll be totally comatose.

Adam.

Or maybe not.

Adam.

The main reason I haven’t dealt with it in the blog posts is that the blog is specifically dealing with the claims of the book being reviewed. The book tends to paint every outside (cultural) influence as “pagan and therefore evil.” My response to the book is to challenge some of the conclusions of the book rather than write one of my own.

Maybe at a later date I may deal with the history that is missing from this discussion…