Author: Brent Hobbs

We’re working through a series on spiritual gifts at our church. I had a hard time finding resources I was happy with so made a few of my own. I also reformatted some resources I was happy with for printing and wanted to make those available for anyone who’d like to use them.

The Resurgence on Spiritual Gifts
This was the most helpful material I found. However, it was spread out across 20 different articles and the images and formatting caused most of the articles to print on two pages. So it just didn’t make for good handout material. I went through, and worked on the formatting and took out almost all of the images so that each article fits on its own page and the gifts are now in alphabetical order. This makes a 10-page (front and back) handout. PDF

Juan Sanchez Article at The Gospel Coalition
This is a one-page article I really appreciate. It discusses the drawbacks of spiritual gift inventories and provides a more biblical way of thinking about and discovering how the Holy Spirit would use us on our churches. I formatted this article to fit on one page. PDF

Evangelical Lutheran Church of America—Spiritual Gifts Inventory
I know I just mentioned an article that discussed the drawbacks of spiritual gift inventories. That said, I think they can be useful if used with the proper disclaimers. So you can take this one online or I made a four-page printout version for in-class usage. PDF | Pages File (if you’d like to make changes/edit)

Spiritual Gifts by Scripture Passage
There are numerous versions of this kind of thing out there. It’s going to depend on some different factors as to how all of these get named and categorized. I couldn’t find one I was completely happy with, so I made my own version. The names of the gifts are mostly taken from the NIV. PDF | Pages File (if you’d like to make changes/edit)

In my reformatting, I’ve tried to give full credit to the original sources. My only goal is to get this in a format that’s easy to use for a classroom setting. I hope it will be helpful to others as well.

So in what may be the only action the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention took that I disagreed with, a resolution against the 2011 NIV was passed overwhelmingly. It came from the floor, rather than the committee, which is highly unusual. The committee had read the resolution and declined to offer it for consideration.

The committee was exactly right. The resolution should have never seen the light of day. Such an important issue should have never been voted on by people so ill-informed about as complicated an issue as Bible translation. As much as some want to paint the issue as black and white, good vs. evil, it is not as simple as that.

As the discussion displayed – many of the people didn’t even know how to evaluate the new NIV. One well-meaning gentleman stood up and said that we shouldn’t condone translations that use gender-neutral language for God. I agree! But the NIV doesn’t do that. The applause his comment received made it clear to me that this was an exercise in misunderstanding and misinformation.

Earlier today our church voted, with little opposition to adopt a revised constitution. There are several issues in the revision I’m glad we were able to address: deacon selection process, naming the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as our official statement of faith, moving our normal revival services date to a more convenient time.

We also added our church covenant to the constitution. The covenant was adopted in 1896 at the same time the church was founded. It is similar (identical?) to most church covenants adopted around that time period. Overall it was a very biblical, helpful statement about many aspects of life together as a church family.

However, in adding the covenant to our constitution, the church also decided to amend one clause in the document. Where the previous text read that we pledged to “abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.” The church adopted new wording for that clause so that it now says that we pledge to “abstain from the abuse of drugs and intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our savior.”

So we added drugs as a concern and also changed from ‘abstaining from the use’ to abstaining from the abuse.” So the new language does permit the use (but not abuse!) of alcoholic drink. More importantly, in my mind, is that we now no longer have this extra-biblical requirement for church membership.

Here are some reasons I am glad we made this change:

1. It allows us to avoid adding to biblical commands for salvation or church membership. Regardless of whether you think drinking alcohol is a bad thing or not, I hope we can all agree that someone should not be denied church membership or disciplined out of church membership for occasionally drinking alcohol in moderation. The way our covenant was worded, we were actually saying: “If you choose to drink, you cannot be a member here.” That should send chills down your spine—to think we would elevate an extra-biblical command to that level.
2. It moves us closer to being grace-centered, rather than law-centered. It is all-too-common (especially in this area of the country) for people to mistake Christianity with moralism. In most people’s minds, Christians are people who “don’t do” this and that. I’m glad to take a shot at that misperception by taking out one of those common “commandments” of moralism.
3. It allows us to take our covenant seriously. For years and years (long before I ever arrived as pastor), we’ve had members who have chosen to drink occasionally. So when we read our covenant together, that clause reinforced the idea that we didn’t really mean what we were saying—that it was ok to not take this covenant seriously. So, if we were to begin taking our covenant seriously, we’re faced with one of two choices: (1) Discipline those members who drink, or (2) Change the covenant.
4. It reminds us to think biblically about human regulations. It reminds us that “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” have only the appearance of wisdom. But they lack any value in actually restraining sensual indulgence. (Col. 2:21-23)

I hope that this will not be construed as a desire to promote drinking in people who have chosen not to. I also hope this will not be seen as a reason for people who have chosen to drink to drink more and more often. That is not my intention nor the intention of our church. I recognize that it could be misconstrued that way by some. But we must stand on the Bible. We cannot add our own preferences as criteria for joining God’s people, the church.

Over the past six months, I’ve slowly made the decision that I will not fly commercially until the TSA enhanced security measures are removed. Commentary on the issue is widely available, but I wanted to post some of the things that have caused me to come to the conclusion I have.

Below are some videos, articles, and quotes from people who have some personal (way too personal) experience with the TSA.

Former Miss USA in Tears After Being “Searched”

6-Year Old Girl Groped in Security Line

Pregnant Teacher Harassed for “Explosives”
“The lady then called for backup because they said they found “traces of explosives” on my hands. I asked if it was policy to search and profile young pregnant women who obviously did not come into contact with ANYTHING explosive or dangerous, and asked why they searched my wallet without asking me. They did not respond.” Read about the whole incident here.

Woman Accused of Embezzlement by TSA for Having Checks in Pocket
“Everything in my purse was out, including my wallet and my checkbook. I had two prescriptions in there. One was diet pills. This was embarrassing. A TSA officer said, ‘Hey, I’ve always been curious about these. Do they work?’ Read more here.

Rape Victim Refuses Intrusive Pat-Down, Thrown to Ground and Handcuffed

Another Woman in Tears Because of Invasive Search
I started to cry…. “I don’t want you to touch me,” I said again… It didn’t matter. Latex fingers felt under my bra, inside my waistband, all with a Southern accent narrating. “Now I’ll touch your breasts. Now your stomach.” It went on. “Now turn around.” Read the whole thing here.

You can find plenty of similarly disturbing stories here: We Won’t Fly.

Ed Stetzer points out the Christian Booksellers Association have released the list of best selling Bible translations for this year. NIV was #1, KJV #2. ESV came in at number five and HCSB at 6. Check out the list here.

I’d like to point you to an article by Dr. Russell Moore that makes a great point: we only show and tell the good parts of our lives online, for the most part. So when you look at Facebook, it tends to depress you because it seems like everyone else is having so much more fun than you.

Take a look here. Dr. Moore is always worth reading and I thought this one particularly worthy of sharing. Moore says:

Slate magazine cites a paper in a social psychology journal that started with an observation about how college students felt more dejected after logging on to Facebook. There was something saddening about “scrolling through others’ attractive photos, accomplished bios, and chipper status updates.” The students’ moods were darkened because they believed everyone else was happier than they are.

Journalist Libby Copeland speculates that Facebook might “have a special power to make us sadder and lonelier.” How can this be, though, when Facebook is generally so, well, happy, brimming with smiling faces and beautiful families? Well, that’s just the point.

Great interview by Justin Taylor with Christian Hip-Hop artists Lecrae and Trip Lee.

Justin Taylor Interview: Lecrae Moore and Trip Lee from Crossway on Vimeo.

Here’s one of my favorite Lecrae songs. You can find his iTunes page here.

Don’t Waste Your Life – Lecrae (Official Music Video) from Edd Blott on Vimeo.

For our Christmas Eve service this year, I’m planning to give the message from John 3:16. We were in the majestic John 1:1-13 this past Sunday and will continue in verses 14-18 this coming Sunday, so I thought John 3 would be a great compliment to those passages.

In studying John 3:16, I took some time to research a question that I’ve wanted to examine for some time now. We all know the traditional translation of the verse says, “…God so loved the world…” The question I’ve wondered about is how to translate “so” (houtos in Greek). A Greek dictionary will give you a definition something like this: “so, thus, in this way.”

That means, depending on which definition is meant by houtos in 3:16, we could get two different senses from the verse. Here are the two options:

1. For God loved the world so much…
2. For God loved the world in this way…

The first option means that houtos indicates “a high degree” whereas the second means something like “in this manner”. I believe most people assume option #1 when they read John 3:16 because that’s the most natural way to understand the phrase “God so loved”.

The word houtos (so, thus, in this way) occurs 208 times in the Greek New Testament—a fairly common word. I went through all 208 times and counted how many times it was used in each of these ways. It is only used to indicate “a high degree” in four of those 208 occurrences. There is one more where I’d say it’s 50/50 and could mean one or the other. And there are two other places it’s used and is possible, but I think unlikely that it means “a high degree”. So, at most 7 out of 208 uses of houtos coincide with option #1. The rest all indicate a meaning like option #2.

In only 2-3% of times this word is used does it mean option #1. (See * list below)
In 97-98% of times houtos is used, it means something like “in this way.”

As I looked through the 208 occurrences, here are some of the ways houtos is translated:

in this way	like this	as follows
exactly	in this manner	and so it happened
this way	just as	in the same way

We know that understanding the Bible must take into account considerations besides lexical meaning. But there seems to be a pretty heavy weight just from the lexical data that we should be leaning toward meaning #2 when we get to John 3:16. I believe the context fits more appropriately with meaning #2 as well. The focus is not on the degree or intensity of God’s love, but on the giving of the one and only Son.

This is why I believe John 3:16 would be better translated: “For God loved this world in this way, he gave his one and only Son…” The Holman Christian Standard Bible and the Net Bible are the only two translations I know of that use that translation. Most others use the traditional “God so loved…” (NIV, TNIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV). And one (eek!) actually uses “God loved the world so much…” (NLT).

*Instances of houtos that indicate degree: Definitely: Gal. 1:6; Gal. 3:3; Heb. 12:21 (houto); and Rev. 16:18 (houto). May or may not (50/50 chance): 1 Thess. 2:8. Possible, but doubtful: Mark 7:18 and 1 John 4:11.

In our worship services, we normally read one Old Testament and one Net Testament passage each week. I normally chose the passages and try to keep them around 8-10 verses, though occasionally a longer section is needed. I thought it might be helpful to post some of the passages we’ve used over the past three years.

OT Passages	NT Passages
Gen 12:1-7 2 Sam 7:8-16 Ps 2:1-8 Ps 72:1-19 Ps 110 Isa 9:1-7 Isa 11:1-5 Jer 33:14-22 Zech 9:9-17	Matt 1:18-25 Matt 2:1-12 Luke 1:26-38 Luke 1:39-55 Luke 2:1-12 Luke 2:13-20 John 1:1-14 John 1:10-18

This list isn’t exhaustive, I’m sure there are plenty of others. Feel free to leave any that you would add in the comments section.

One of the problems with the discussion over the updated NIV translation is that it tends to make us focus on a few select passages to judge a whole translation. While that kind of discussion has its place and can be helpful, there are many aspects of translation which would never be touched on if that’s the only way we evaluate.

I think one of the most helpful is to simply take passages and compare them side-by-side. I’m preaching on Romans 3:1-8 this week, so thought I might take the opportunity to show the differences between the 1984 and 2011 versions of the NIV. That’s my only reason for selecting this particular passage: it’s the one I’m currently working through.

There are three changes that I see as I compare these translations: verses 3, 4, and 8. Let’s look at each in turn.

Romans 3:3
NIV (1984):

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?

NIV Update (2011)

What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?

I found this one particularly interesting because as I studied yesterday, never looking at the NIV Update, I wrote in my notes on the passage that the NIV’s “faith” would probably be better understood as faithfulness. It is not primarily the lack of belief, but lack of covenant obedience to the “very words of God (v.2)” that Paul is discussing. Though belief likely would be included in this understanding, the ’84 rendering makes it sound as if belief is the primary focus.

So I count this one as a notable improvement over the 1984 NIV. To compare how other translations render the verse: Faith/belief—NIV 1984, NASB, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NET; Faithfulness—TNIV, NIV 2011, ESV, NLT, RSV, NRSV)

Romans 3:4
NIV (1984)

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

NIV Update (2011)

Let God be true, and every human being a liar.

The dreaded gender neutrality shows up! The text certainly flows and sounds better with “man” than “human being.” And the Greek is certainly the noun for man (which is often used of humans in general). It is clear that this refers to both men and women equally so the meaning of the text is not obscured by the gender-neutral rendering.

I don’t call this an improvement, but I don’t think it’s reason to criticize either. For readability reasons alone, I wish they had left it as it was in 1984. Translation comparison: Man—NIV 1984, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV; Human Beings/One/Everyone else—NIV 2011, TNIV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, NET.

Romans 3:8
NIV (1984)

Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

NIV Update (2011)

Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

From what I can tell, the first change is an effort at clarity by giving a shorter rendering of the Greek. Is the meaning better presented even though “literalness” has been sacrificed? I think so. On the whole, I’d say this change is for the better. Longer reading—NIV 1984, TNIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV; Shorter reading: NIV 2011, ESV, HCSB, NLT, RSV, NET

The second change is from “deserved” to “just”. This Greek work is from the “justice/righteousness” family of words and is certainly more literally rendered as “just.” “Deserved” is probably a fair way of bringing the concept into contemporary English, though it does lose the word family association. Overall, I slightly prefer “just” here, but realize a case could be made fir either. Translation comparison: Deserved—NIV 1984, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, NET; Just—NIV 2011, TNIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV.

So as we look at the changes, overall, I think the NIV 2011 is to be slightly preferred over the NIV 1984. Probably most interesting to me is the fact that the ESV has made the same choices in the two areas (gender-neutrality and literalness) that the NIV 2011 has been criticized most for (and quite often by fans of the ESV)!