Subscribe to feed
Playing at preaching?
Posted by Semper on 20 November 2006
There is a superb article on William Tyndale at a John Piper website.
This paragraph really struck me:
I linger here with this difference between Tyndale and Erasmus because I am trying to penetrate to how Tyndale accomplished what he did through translating the New Testament. Explosive reformation is what he accomplished in England. This was not the effect of Erasmus’ highbrow, elitist, layered nuancing of Christ and church tradition. Erasmus and Thomas More may have satirized the monasteries and clerical abuses, but they were always playing games compared to Tyndale. (Semper’s emphasis)
It was the reference to “playing games” that struck a chord. I have been so concerned lately about how poor the preaching is in ALL churches but particularly among Reformed Baptists since I am of that species.
It is sometimes self-indulgent, usually safe, mainly repeating dull nostrums and couched in uninspired lazy language - it is often delivering second hand theology than a first hand experience of the Bible text. Who can blame people for turning to the exciting or novel experiences available elsewhere?
But the thought occurs to me that the dull brown preachers and the bright coloured peacocks have something in common. Maybe it is just a game?
7 February 2007 at 5:22 am
Tyndale was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.
Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).
When you hold up that Bible in your hands, Remember your are accepting 1,600 years of Catholic guardianship of Sacred Scripture
7 February 2007 at 8:22 pm
Joseph has left a mangled AOL email so I should not have passed this comment but it is such a good example of the lack of seriousness I was complaining about that I have passed it through moderation.
Since the Roman thought police have specialised in slander of “heretics” from the beginning the vague accusations in this comment are models of the species. The “errors” are of course readings of which the Curia disapprove. And the pompous claim to represent the believers of 1600 years is also typical.
The resort to the worst ad hominem slurs comes from the pride and partisanship which characterised More himself. Well done, Joseph, you are a credit to your tradition.