Eugene Peterson will lecture, read & receive the annual Denise Levertov award, Sat. at 7:30.
The event is free & open to the public.
I am so grateful for Peterson. I’m halfway through his new book, Tell It Slant, and it’s changing the way I think about storytelling. I’m also grateful for his words about Through a Screen Darkly, which appear on the book’s back cover. And I get a little giddy thinking about how Bono carries around copies of The Message and gives them away to people who have questions about his faith.
I encourage you to take this opportunity to hear Peterson speak. If you’re in the Seattle area, this is a rare and exciting opportunity.
Would love to hear more about your perspective on Tell it Slant and how it is changing your perspective on storytelling.
I’d be interested to hear exactly what is so all-fired appealing about Peterson’s ‘translation’ of the Scriptures. Are we to understand that all of what has been faithfully and textually wrought throughout the centuries of Christendom ( very often being paid for with the blood, sweat , and tears of those responsible for carrying out their very real end of the great comission ) is somehow on par with a thoroughly postmodern paraphrased edition of Holy Writ?
Am I to better comprehend what God has to say because of the modern euphemisms like ‘seminars’ and ‘conferences’ that Peterson sees fit to pepper his pages with? Does it matter that neither of these two examples that he chooses to utilize are in any way reminiscent of what the original scribe, through Divine inspiration, was laboring to communicate?
Honestly, can we not do better than this?
Do we not already possess better?
Why not?
Um… whoa. Take a deep breath.
Peterson often tells the story of how he came to write the Message. As a pastor in a small church, he became aware of just how much trouble his congregants were having understanding the scriptures. He wanted to offer a paraphrase in their common, everyday language. He never claimed to be coming up with anything on par with the King James translation.
I think if you met the man, you’d find him to be an admirably humble human being who sought to serve his congregation. It’s what pastors do every Sunday: taking the text, which is itself a step or two removed from the original text, not to mention ages away from its context, and translating it, giving his congregants new lenses through which to encounter and understand it.
Hey, there are passages in The Message that make me think “I’d have used a different word.” But I’m in awe of the amount of time and energy he invested in this ministry, and he has a background that thoroughly prepared him for the task. And I’ve been blessed by some of his paraphrases.
Clearly, many other believers have as well. For example, Bono knows that the Bible is a “hard sell” to his fellow rock stars. But I’ve heard story after story about times when Bono’s pulled a copy of the Message out of his car to give to someone. He said himself that this paraphrase brought the scriptures to life in a way that he hadn’t encountered before. I know Bono’s approval is not necessarily a perfect endorsement, but it’s a good example of how this paraphrase is bringing the gospel to people who need it in a language that won’t turn them off.
It may not be the “perfect Bible.” But if it’s a “gateway” through which more people come into relationship with God’s word, I’m all for it.
Jeff,
In all sincerity, my concerns have little (as in ‘nothing whatsoever’) to do with whether or not I would find Mr. Peterson to be of the congenial and humble verve. Likewise, it should be noted that, while I’m grateful for the literary qualities of the KJV, it’s got it’s own baggage trunk that, when considered by the average layman, would become like that proverbial giant millstone. The problematics here don’t touch whether or not I would find Peterson ‘Christian enough’ (whatever the hell that means!), but with the issue of paraphrase itself.
Truly, Scripture is a vast treasure-trove of wonder, one that often requires much of the reader in the way of grasping historical context, local idiom, and translationary nuance. My concern with this paraphrase (much like another well-known watery work, the NLT) remains that, in a well-intentioned effort to better communicate the timeless truth of the Bible, much is lost when textual authenticity is substituted for our own often faulty spiritual intuitiveness.
Granted, much of what we understand culturally today puts even the brightest minds we encounter at odds with the regularities of first-century life…but how much of that is essentially important to grasping the fundamentals (ooooh, dirty word alert!) of both God’s Law and His Gospel?
Does it not behoove those of us that endeavor to make a study of such things to continue to make them known (even as we ourselves continue to glean from the text), or at least insist that fellow brothers and sisters make an effort (size being relevant to ability, time, etc.) to do likewise?
The importance of such attention to faithful translation certainly wasn’t lost on the original copyists that labored to bring forth their copies of the Septuagint. So, too, the copyists of the earliest Gospel accounts and Epistles, fervently sought to make certain that they were, in fact, ‘getting it right.’ After all, they (like the Isrealites before them), were being entrusted with the very words of God.
So, setting this forth in the language of the day doesn’t have to mean an insistence that we as Christians only utilize those precise words which have already been set forth. But neither can it come to mean that those same words have become ‘static’ and ‘irrelevant’ given the age in which WE find ourselves. Lewis had much to say regarding the criticism of arguments based solely upon their chronology; any pastor worth his salt (a deliberate metaphor) can conjour up one anecdote after another to underscore a point found in Scripture. Given that, do you honestly believe that the Bible is a ‘hard sell’ because of the language in which it is currently written?
Or is it because fallen humanity simply doesn’t give a crap apart from the intervention of the Spirit?
With all apologies to any vegetarian-leaning sensibilities that may be lurking by any who read this, failing to make use of the words which we have already been given via several viable, faithful translations becomes akin to developing a taste for tofu and carrot juice, when what we so desperately need is a thick, savory porterhouse and a yard of stout! Making use of these will constitute some effort expended on our part, I agree, but not neccessarily one that ultimately requires a degree in several ancient disciplines.
Why can this not be the very epitome of taking a closer look?