Andrea Da Firenze (1343-1377) Descent of the Holy Spirit

Truth, Translation, and Translucence: <Traduttore (no) Traditore!>
(or)
The Flesh/Word Became Word/Flesh and
Pitched His Language Among Us
(Acts 02)

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
Pentecost Sunday (A)
June 12 2011

Everyone speaks French. Not really. But we think my father is funny.

For five years my family lives in England. My family does not travel very much. But during those five years we take many trips each year to different parts of Great Britain and to different countries in Europe. Spain / France / Italy / Germany / Belgium / Luxembourg / Switzerland. Now my dad can speak a very small amount of French. And what we think is very funny is that no matter where we go no matter what language people speak in that country we visit my dad tries to speak French. Because if people do not speak English and we do not speak their language for some crazy reason my father thinks maybe French will work.

One of my favorite stories is when we are in Rome. We are walking from our hotel to the coliseum. We walk by this very ordinary looking church. And there are cars and people everywhere. Something special is happening. So my father walks up to a police officer. Tries to ask him in French what is happening. Does not work. So my dad – the master of all languages – in his best Italian points at the church and says (shrug). The police officer points at his watch and says Il Papa! Il Papa! The Pope! The Pope! The Pope is coming to visit this little church.

Not everyone really speaks French. But my dad tries.

In our Bible story for this morning from the book of Acts chapter two no one speaks French. Not everyone even speaks Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Not everyone speaks the same language.

When the day of Pentecost comes, they are all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind comes from heaven and fills the whole house where they are sitting. ³ They see what seem to be tongues (Greek gloossai) of fire that separate and come to rest on each of them. ⁴ All of them are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in other tongues (gloossais) as the Spirit makes them able. ⁵ Now there are staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. ⁶ When they hear this sound, a crowd comes together all confused? amazed? because each one hears them speaking in his own language (Greek dialektos).

Today is my favorite day in the Christian calendar. The Day of Pentecost. The day when the family of God celebrates and perhaps experiences again when God sends the Holy Spirit upon the early Christian church. Last week on Ascension Sunday we hear the story of how Jesus appears to his followers after his resurrection for forty days. He shows them that he is alive. He teaches them about the kingdom of God. He tells them Wait for the gift my Father promised which you have heard me talk about. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will tell people about me in Jerusalem (your home city) in Judea (your home province) in Samaria (the country or province next to yours) and to the ends of the earth.

There is a small but very powerful very important detail in this story that almost no one notices or talks about. Think about this for a moment. You have all these people from different provinces different nations different cultures who speak different languages. The story tells us they are all Jewish. Maybe there is one language that they all can use. Maybe they all know Greek or Hebrew although probably not. Maybe the followers of Jesus can speak in Greek or Aramaic and the Holy Spirit can make all these people understand one language.

But the Holy Spirit does not bring all these people together by making them the same. By making them one culture or able to understand one language. The Holy Spirit does something much more interesting. Makes the disciples able to speak in other languages so that each person can hear the good news about Jesus in his or her own language.

As if God respects the different language cultures nations that are there in Jerusalem. God does not say “Okay let’s see we have Africans Asians Europeans – all of you will now be the same. We have people who speak Greek Latin Chinese Korean Swahili Japanese Polish – all of you will now speak French”. No instead God says “Yes I want all people everywhere to know me worship me serve me. Yes I want all of you to experience my love healing forgiveness and salvation through Jesus my son. I want all of you to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. All of you to be part of the family of God. But I do not want you all to be the same. I want you to be a church of different cultures languages and nations”.

So we have this huge gathering of people from different provinces nations and cultures. They proclaim who God is and the wonderful things God has done through his son Jesus – they do this in different languages that reflect their different cultures and traditions. We know from the rest of the book of Acts that these different people go back to their home provinces and countries and form Christian communities that preach teach worship and serve in different languages. They find ways to understand and serve Jesus Christ that are appropriate for their different cultures.

In a way this is the great contradiction(?) of Church of the Nations. Bible study and worship in simple English. English Conversation. But our goal is not in fact to become American or speak only English. Part of our mission is to help everyone learn about and/or grow in the Christian faith. To be a place that helps people understand and live within American culture. But(?) to respect and encourage you as people with your own culture who continue to have your own language of the heart.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in Tennessee. Two years ago he wrote an article on his website that changed even more how I look at language and culture. He wrote:

“That the Bible can be translated says something about language. It is interesting that the Christian faith has always translated the Bible.

I believe sometimes a translation will reveal things that are true that could not have been seen in the original language. There are relations between words and ideas in a language that are only in that language. I believe we should not ignore such relations and the meanings they create simply because the same relations and meanings do not exist in the original languages. These meanings are not enough for the official teachings of the Christian church. But they can sometimes be part of what the Bible reveals to us”.

It might be possible to translate the Bible or a song of worship or an act of worship or a work of art of a book about the Christian faith into your language or your culture. And not only does that translation or song or art communicate the truth of God. But it can also communicate new ideas and new meaning that is not in the original. Tradutore no sempre traditore – the translator is not always a traitor.

Stephen Freeman writes this is because in the Christian faith a word or an action or even a picture is not just a word or action or picture. There is something more. Words and actions and pictures are windows through which we can experience what they represent. They are transluscent.

Yes we gather to worship God to study the Bible to learn about to grow in the Christian faith in simple English. Mostly. But we do not give up and we do not lose our national or cultural or linguistic background. In fact let us embrace and celebrate and understand better our own language and culture. So that we are better able to let the Holy Spirit proclaim to us and in us and through us the wonderful acts of God and most of all what God has done through Jesus Christ his son.

Best picture I could find - it ain't all about the football!

God has been most merciful because for almost 12 years one of my favorite Christian brothers on the planet is a member of University Baptist and a former Chancellor of Louisiana State University. A few weeks ago he came by the church to copy something for his Sunday Bible study group and we talked for a while. I asked him about the cuts being made at Louisiana State University.

He said such cuts happen periodically. Each time people predict the death of the university. And each time the university somehow survives and grows and thrives. Because every organization needs periodically to trim the fat that has accumulated. Positions and programs that are added when none are removed or ended. Mission creep that leads to a university taking on more projects in the region that might not necessarily be part of its essential purpose.

But this time is different. This is not just trimming fat. This is cutting into the flesh. Perhaps even into bone. This could make Louisiana State University less than what it should be. This could hurt current and future students. This could damage the state of Louisiana as a whole.

From The Reveille today:

All the instructors in the English Department have received termination notices, said assistant professor Daniel Novak.

“Instructors [have gotten] their termination letters extended but still don’t have job security even when they teach the majority of the writing classes for students in this University,” Novak said.

The extension assures the instructors’ employment for an additional six months “but instead of giving them a contract for six months, they were given a letter saying they were going to be fired in six months,” Novak said.

The English Department has approximately 90 faculty members, 36 of whom are instructors who teach the writing portion of the University’s curriculum.

Instructors teach 62 percent of ENGL 1001 sections and 74 percent of 2000 sections of the department’s writing program, according to the Director of the University Writing Program Barbara Heifferon.

The writing instructor who is quoted extensively is also a member of University Baptist. She and her husband are pillars of this church family. They have hosted English Conversation for us several times.

This gets my attention also because if ever I had to leave vocational ministry I would be interested in doing something like teaching English as a Second Language or teaching English writing. During my doctoral studies at Cornell University I took a course on how to teach writing in English and taught or helped teach two Freshman Writing Seminars. It was one of my best experiences in graduate school. I like to think I was pretty good at it. The director of the program borrowed one of my handouts (on crux versus thesis) and asked me to share with the program some of my experiences – like an idiot said no can’t too busy or something – and was the only writing instructor whose students on the last day of class presented him with a cake. On top of which was written something rather mushy.

I hurt for the university. I hurt for the families I know who are affected. I hurt for a program that has a special place in my heart.

But speaking of what has a special place in my heart.

University writing courses are not optional. They are required by university accrediting agencies. This could cause problems for some students who need these classes in order to graduate. So what will the university do?

Faculty and staff in the English Department worry that the University’s recent academic alliance with the Baton Rouge Community College may be the University’s solution to circumvent part of the problem.

“Bears 2 Tigers,” a program allowing students to transfer seamlessly from BRCC to the University to complete a bachelor’s degree, was signed Sept. 28 by Chancellor Michael Martin and BRCC Chancellor Myrtle Dorsey.

The partnership, which originally only included engineering, has been extended to BRCC students with business, science, and humanities and social sciences associate degrees.

Reading through the comments section it appears many think this is a terrible solution. Some make disparaging comments about community colleges.

Dean Ed Warner (right)

I think it is long past time such a partnership was put in place. Community colleges have a special place in the heart of my own family. My grandfather (top of page 5) was dean of Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica New York which is a model of what a community college can be. One of his great achievements was to create such a network that allowed students to “transfer seamlessly” from Mohawk Valley Community College to many of the top universities in the state.

This was 30-40 years ago.

I am deeply sympathetic to faculty and staff at Louisiana State University who are being affected by these cuts. But my sympathy is mitigated by my strong appreciation for the important role that community colleges play in a healthy system of higher education. So what if some students choose to get their basic requirements at Baton Rouge Community College and then transfer seamlessly to Louisiana State University? What is wrong with that?

There is an answer to that question however. Which is what about students who don’t do that? Who begin and remain at Louisiana State? How will they fulfill their writing course requirement? The university cannot outsource the entire program can it?

For the record my wife and I hope and plan for my children to attend Louisiana State. So far they seem pretty happy with the idea. We have a personal interest in the future of Louisiana’s flagship university.

Addendum:

Revolution 21 says it very well indeed in “Louisiana: Stupid Is As Stupid Cuts”. As much as some might rebel against the idea we have too many “university” campuses and greatly need to combine/consolidate.

H/T Opinionated Catholic.

Sgt Neil Wood and Co - United States Army in Iraq

The minister with youth has been taking Hebrew at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and we have had some interesting conversations.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. – Psalm 23:6

The Hebrew verb in question is yirdpuuni(y)* < root r-d-p normally translated “pursue”. Why do we translate this follow rather than:

Surely goodness and mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life.

Does God follow us or pursue us? Is God the sheep who meekly follows along after us the shepherd? Or does God pursue us who are the wayward wandering and often imperiled sheep? Notice how this fits better the theme of the psalm and may represent an inclusio with the opening imagery: (a) shepherd, (b) host, (a’) shepherd/host.

The first and traditional translation seems weak and passive. The second more active and robust. God is a lover who pursues us. He is sometimes describes as the hound of heaven.

Another is something we sing quite often in Church of the Nations in French and Indonesian as well as in English.

This is the day that the Lord has made. – Psalm 118:24

What does this translation of Hebrew `aśa(h) < `-ś-(h) emphasize? The existence of this day that God has made. In other words the existence of creation. But most of Psalm 118 emphasizes not creation but the mighty saving acts of God. Try this on for size.

This is the day that the Lord has acted.

Do you see the difference? The activity of God is less distant and remote. Oh yes once upon a time eons ago God created the day. We are happy we have this day.

Or God is active today to answer our calls of distress to grant us victory to make the rejected stone the cornerstone.

Some might say so what? I don’t see the difference.

I would suggest it is a very big difference. Granted there is an important theological connection between creation and salvation but the focus of my point here is on the difference between a deist world from which God has effectively been removed and a world in which God acts. Indeed creation properly understood is not just past but also present. As Jon Levenson demonstrates in Creation and the Persistence of Evil salvation is a creative act.

Language is a bear.

Several weeks ago Glenn Beck (yeah yeah I know) at CPAC gave overall a decent presentation in which among other things he attempted to clarify terminology. Like liberal leftist communist Marxist progressive. Argued that the threat to America is progressivism. Which is different only in that it attempts to achieve socialism gradually rather than through violent revolution.

Eh. Maybe.

Have listened a few provocative podcasts by Clark Carlton who is assistant professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University from his “Faith and Philosophy” series.

He has about three podcasts that address economics and the terms that we use. Among other things he argues that:

• liberal – in the true classical sense – means belief in “maximum freedom”. Its opposite is not conservatism but:
• statism – belief in the power of the state

What this means is that many people we call “conservative” are not conservative but rather they are (true) liberals. And many that we call “liberal” are really statists.

Carlton further argues that:

• progressive is a relative term that means belief in progress or change and
• conservative is a relative term that means support for the status quo

Since these are relative terms – it depends on what the current status quo is right? – then Beck is mistaken. Granted it so happens that given the status quo those we call “progressive” are in many ways progressive and those we call “conservative” are indeed conservative. But then again perhaps not. Not if we misunderstand the nature of the current status quo.

There are two more relevant terms Carlton defines.

• the left means a belief in egalitarianism which does not mean equality of status value or opportunity but equality of result in other words everyone is the same
• the right means a belief in order difference and even hierarchy

Now it so happens that people on the left are nearly always statist. Because human beings are not the same. The only way to make them (if artificially) the same is through the power of the state. I asked Prof Carlton for examples of right statist – using the power of the state to enforce order difference and hierarchy – but have not yet received an answer. I am sure there is one. His point is that modern history shows far more left statism than right statism which may be a thing of the past. Perhaps feudalism is a good example of right statism.

Why is this important?

First that we – by which I mean me and many who read this website and many but not all “conservatives” – are in fact the true liberals. Because we are not statists. We believe in freedom. It is time for us to reclaim the term which was misappropriated by people who believe in the state more than in freedom.

Second that those who call themselves “liberal” are in fact leftist or statist or both.

Third which opens the possibility that there just might be such a thing as leftist liberals. People who want everyone to be equal. But do not want to achieve that through the power of the state. Anarchists and the Odonian society on Anarras in The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin come to mind.

The one thing that occurs to me is the lesson of Animal Farm by George Orwell. How all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. That those who hold the reins of political power in America want to “spread the wealth around” so that we are all equal. But already we see how they intend to be more equal than the rest of us.

There has been some hullabaloo of late over Glenn Beck urging Christians to leave churches (read congregations) that preach social justice. Did Jesus not preach social justice? Is Glenn Beck against Jesus?

Please understand I am not a fan or critic of Glenn Beck. Do not watch his show although have seen parts of it a few times. Would say I have a mixed opinion of him. Did watch his entire presentation at Conservative Political Action Committee. Parts of it were very well done. Parts of it were hunh?

But this is not about Glenn Beck. This is about language. Readers of this website know I have a strong interest in languages and how people use words. I have begun to share (when preaching or teaching) a “deep dark secret” of language.

Words do not have meanings. They have uses.

(Not completely sure where I picked that up. Think it was when attending a pastor’s conference in Kerala in India. The Indian pastors got into a friendly argument over English translations of the Bible and concern over translations that change(?) what the Bible teaches. During which Dr Kunjumun Chacko asserted “words do not have meanings they have uses”. He was defending dynamic rather than literal translation.)

John Leo has a piece at National Review Online about how Glenn Beck was “tripped up” by the rhetoric of the social-political-cultural left.

In plain English, “social justice” is a goal of all churches and refers to helping the poor and seeking equality. As a code word, it refers to a controversial package of goals including political redistribution of wealth, gay marriage, and a campaign against “institutional racism,” “classism,” “ableism,” and “heterosexism.” Beck was wildly off base linking “social justice” (of either form) to Communism and Nazism, but he was correct to note that the term is often used as a code.

Leo goes on to discuss further the use of code words on American university campuses such as secure livelihoods and strong economies and especially sustainability.

Now to be fair conservatives and those on the right sometimes do the same thing. Although I confess do not have many specific examples. Family values comes to mind.

Strangely appropriate in light of the new Tim Burton movie “Alice in Wonderland”.

Which is more troubling? The direction that the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress are taking this nation? Or the way they are doing it?

In all honesty – I say the latter. We have to do this immediately or else there will be catastrophe or – and I can hardly believe the president would say this – permanent damage to our economy. And we are not allowed to raise principled objections because that would constitute “politics”.

What on earth is politics except debate and dissent and the freedom to raise objections? These attempts to silence shut down and marginalize any and all opposition are what I find most offensive. What exactly does it mean to “transcend politics”?

Today, again, we are told that “politics” has no place in the debate about the tripartite stimulus legislation, which is partly a stimulus, partly liberalism’s agenda of social engineering, and partly the beginning of “remaking” the economy. Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale College notes that the size of the stimulus — the House-Senate compromise bill is $789 billion — is just slightly less than the amount of all U.S. currency in circulation, and is larger than the entire federal budget was until 1983. Yet it is said that in the debate about this encompassing legislation — which concerns what government can and should do, and ultimately what kind of regime America shall have — people should “transcend” (so says Larry Summers, the president’s economic adviser) politics. What, then, would be left for political argument to be about?

It is said that the negligible Republican support for the stimulus legislation means that bipartisanship is dead. But what can “bipartisanship” mean concerning legislation that concerns almost everything?

Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.

A significant portion of the American population thinks the president and Congress are making a bad situation worse. I say they are attempting to rewrite the basic guiding vision of our nation. But we are not even allowed to say “now hold on a second”.

I feel bad for Columbus Ohio whose mayor Michael Coleman was invited to speak about race and the presidential election on the National Public Radio program “Talk of the Nation” yesterday October 30.

Early in his remarks he said:

The election of Barack Obama he and this country will overcome the issues of race, and that’s one of the good things about this election, is we are overcoming the race factor.

Even in context (especially given what he says later) it is not entirely clear exactly what he means. A harsh interpretation is that the election of Sen Obama will mean the United States has finally gotten over race. (And if you do not vote for him – then you are perpetuating race as a problem.) At first this is what I thought he was saying and was pretty annoyed at the presumption and what can only be described as a kind of moral blackmail. (Vote for my guy or else you are a racist.)

But he continued to suggest race will still be a factor in American society no matter who is elected. So perhaps a more generous interpretation is that race is a factor in this election but Sen Obama is able to overcome it (that is – it will not prevent the success of his election bid). Fair enough.

What really frosted my mug was his next remarks which represent racial rhetorical despotism. Mayor Coleman argued that some things said against Sen Obama represent “code”.

I do think some folks around John McCain have used code words that frankly I think display some racial insensitivities.

The interview (to his credit) pressed for specifics.

“Risky.“

(Hold on. Swallow your coffee. Don’t hit your computer.)

I hear commercial after commercial calling Barack Obama a “risky candidate”.

The mayor then drew on his own experience when he ran for election as mayor in which his opponent labeled him as “risky” and this somehow was code language with racial (racist) undertones.

While it {such language} is not a direct assault it does underlie some underpinnings getting people to think some thoughts privately “what does that mean, ‘risky’?”

Mayor – no offense with all due respect(?!?)… no. And what you are engaging in is rhetorical despotism.

What does risky mean? The word risky has racial overtones? For Sarah Palin to suggest Sen Obama loves America less than she does has some “bothersome underpinnings”? (I wish Gov Palin would not say things like that but in what sense do such comments have racial over- I mean undertones?)

So if someone is a cipher, does not (at least according to that politician) have much hard experience or qualifications for a particular job, we cannot trust him as much, do not think he would do as good a job in office, and you call that “risky” that is somehow an appeal to racist attitudes? You have got to be kidding me.

Out of curiosity – what is a non-racist non-”code” way to say “risky”? If “risky” (and other such terms that you assert are code words) is unacceptable do be so kind as to provide us with an acceptable vocabulary for political discourse.

No? You will not? Because this is not about code or really about terms with bothersome racial undertones. This is about silencing the other side with unprovable assertions and guilt. “I am a member of ethnic group x. With the sole power of my own personal authority I declare that you are not allowed to use those words against the candidate I prefer. Because when you say tomato I assert unilaterally that what you really mean is orange and orange is racist”.

This is racial rhetorical despotism. Not to mention – and this is not a very polite thing to say – genuinely stupid. We need to stand up to this sort of arrogant foolishness.

I hope he is a better mayor. (According to my research – he is.)

For the record – some McCain supporters have sometimes said (or published) attacks against Sen Obama that are in my opinion genuinely racist. Yes I can show you specific examples. But spare us please this “code” nonsense. All that does is try to shut people up with fear and guilt.

During out time in Upstate New York visiting my mom and extended family I had an idea not unrelated to ideas I have had concerning how we count in English.

Consider that every letter in the English alphabet is spoken with one syllable. Ay, bee, see, dee, ee, eff, gee, aych, eye, and so on. With one exception.

Double-yoo. Three syllables.

My proposal is to change how we speak the letter w to one syllable – perhaps something like way. So that when we give out web addresses we no longer slog through double-yoo double-yoo double-yoo dot yahoo dot com. Instead just way way way dot yahoo dot com.

It gets better.

Have you noticed how often in English when we spell a word people have to ask “Wait – did you say em or en? See or zee?” Too many letters in English are too close in pronunciation that – especially over the phone – we are not sure. (This is why the military comes up with those whiskey-foxtrot-tango systems. No ambiguity at all.)

And those crazy Canucks and Brits and Aussies and the rest say zed instead of zee – which is why they never get confused over the phone. At least between c and z. You can laugh (and Weird Al pokes at this in his song “Canadian Idiot”) – but it makes sense. I wonder if we resist changing over because of that pesky “ABC Song”.

So why stop at way for w? Why not look at all the ambiguous letter-pairs and change one so that there is no more ambiguity?

Instead of bee and pee perhaps bee and pay. (I believe one finds this frequently in how foreign languages say their alphabets.) Instead of the always confusing em or en we get em and nay. And so on.

Coming up – why we need to do this with how we count numbers.

Keep your Hebrew fresh and sharp. Just three verses per day – which is more than I usually read at this stage of my life. (Not good considering how many years I spent studying biblical Hebrew and how much of my published work is on its historical development.) Thank goodness for the gift of and service provided by DailyHebrew.

Now… if only there could also be a DailyEgyptian, DailyAkkadian, DailyUgaritic, DailyNorthWestSemiticInscriptions, DailyAramaic, DailyArabic, DailyGerman, and DailyFrench as well. Not asking for much am I?

I have been rereading later books in the Dune saga by Frank Herbert. In God Emperor of Dune I came across this exchange between the God Emperor Leto II and his majordomo Moneo:

“Religion always leads to rhetorical despotism,” Leto said. “Before the Bene Gesserit, the Jesuits were the best at it…. You learn enough about rhetorical despotism from a study of the Bene Gesserit. Of course, they do not begin by deluding themselves with it…. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecy and justifications for all manner of obscenities.”

“This… rhetorical despotism, Lord?”

“Yes! It shields evil behind walls of self-righteousness which are proof against all arguments against the evil…. It feeds on deliberately twisted meanings to discredit opposition,” Leto said. (emphasis added; New York: Ace, 1981; 116)

I wonder what examples of rhetorical despotism one might find if we look closely at the religious organizations with which we are most familiar.