The Bridge to Nowhere

Yesterday morning at a men's group I attend, we were discussing 1 Thessalonians 1 which gives a great description of conversion—the response to the Gospel/Good News by which one becomes a Christian.

... our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction.... You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what happened when we visited you. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God...

Is that message ringing out from our churches today? How are we doing at evangelism? Could I say enough to be able to invite a friend to trust in Jesus and to experience the life change I have experienced? John Bowen wrote a great book which aims "to show that evangelism is, or at least can be, normal for all those who consider themselves followers of Jesus" (p.16, Evangelism for "Normal" People). In contrast to those Thessalonians and their ringing message, many of us may resonate more with Rebecca Manley Pippert who confessed, "There was part of me that secretly felt evangelism was something you shouldn't do to your dog, let alone your friend" (p.16, Out of the Saltshaker).

Recently, on a church website, I came across a new way of presenting the gospel called "The Big Story." The author, James Choung, believes we need to go beyond The Bridge illustration which we've used so much in the last few decades (think: Four Spiritual Laws, Steps to Peace with God, or "The Bridge"). Maybe you'll recognize it...

It seems to me, that for many Christians today, this Bridge illustration has become "the bridge to nowhere." We know the plan, we can talk about this bridge if we had to, but we're not actually sharing our faith with others, so it remains just a bridge we could draw if we needed to, not one that people have actually crossed. And a bridge that exists only in our minds, my friends, really is "a bridge to nowhere."

Evangelism is one of the many activities we no longer have time for in our busy, fast-paced world. Ironically, it is in this busy fast-paced world where I've heard more about evangelism in the last couple years than in the church! Evangelism is the sharing of good news, so Tim Sanders believes we should diligently read the latest greatest business books so that we can "evangelize" the best ideas from these books to everyone we know. Sarah Palin and John McCain are showing what mavericks they are by evangelizing Alaska's infamous Bridge to Nowhere which was never built because Palin said "no" to the pork barrel spending of Congress. This "evangelism" that has nothing to do with the Good News of Jesus started with Guy Kawasaki who pioneered the concept of evangelizing a product to promote its sales. Thanks to Kawasaki's plan of evangelism, from the early years of Macintosh computers to today, Apple owners never stop talking about the superiority of their computers! I've been wondering if the church could learn a point or two from a book I've been reviewing titled Creating Customer Evangelists. Everyone seems to be out there evangelizing something! Hopefully, the problem is just me and there really are many, many Christians out there evangelizing the good news of Jesus because we really do have a life-changing message to share. Maybe it's high time to reclaim evangelism for the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

I know one Christian who is doing something—my wife. She told me that her new carpool friend from work is visiting our church this Sunday. I think that's great since they've only just met a short while ago. And, actually, it's really great since this friend is also bringing her boyfriend who hasn't been to church for over five years since leaving a narrow-minded, ultra-conservative church (and I might be tempted to say cult-like group). Last year, my wife invited a friend that she had taken a class with to come to our church's Alpha Course, and she did come because she had been meaning to get around to looking into Christianity! So I do know from my wife's example that some evangelism is taking place. (And as a footnote about myself, I guess I do want to clarify that I am trying to share my faith, but I've had some friends in the last couple years that I just haven't been able to make much progress with.)

I'm hoping to get some feedback on what you think about this new way of presenting our good news. I like that James Choung is trying to stress not just a "decision" but transformation. He talks not just about the "individual" but about the Christian community. And he is less focused on the "after-life" and more focused on our life together on a mission. I really would like to hear what you think about this presentation. (After playing "The Big Story", you'll see a link to play "The Big Story, Part 2" which I recommend as well.) After viewing it, think about, and make a post. Maybe we can talk about it together. Just maybe we should be ready to draw four circles rather than our plan for a bridge which doesn't seem to be leading us anywhere. Let me know what you think.

Related Sermons

Forfeiting Life

God's grace is amazing and even overwhelming at times. But forfeiting the grace that could be ours is not a winning strategy. The book of Jonah offers several "prophetable" insights about the lengths God will go to so that no one forfeits the grace that could be theirs (Jonah 2:8).

Not Ready

This message from John 4:27-42 explores the top reasons why so many of us in the church today believe that we are "not ready" to share our Christian faith. The Samaritan woman from the well instantly becomes an evangelist and her town is changed! What could we learn from this scene in the life of Jesus?

The Gospel according to Canada

There is a rather Canadian way of being a Christian. We value the privatization of religious beliefs. What Jesus says in Mark 4:21-25 challenges our Canadian practice, urging us to make public what is now private.

Codex Sinaiticus: It's Greek to Me!

Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest and most famous Bibles in existence, is indeed written in Greek. Friends of mine were alarmed by a BBC article which claimed that Codex Sinaiticus was "The Rival to the Bible." I too was quite alarmed by this article and its apparent aim to pose "some very uncomfortable questions" to "those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God." I've chosen to use this blog entry to respond to some of these very uncomfortable questions which are nothing more than an attempt to sensationalize and distort the simple truth.

What's this about? Well, this is actually old news that the BBC is reporting. This summer a new website was launched which by next July will give full access to the full text of the Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth century Christian "bible", written in Greek, containing the New Testament, much of the Old Testament and a couple post-apostolic writings. Back in July they launched the site, giving access to high tech images of the Gospel of Mark and the book of Psalms. At that time CNN published the article, "World's oldest Bible goes online"; it's a better article than the BBC one as it is more factual, less distorting and less sensationalized.

There's quite a story behind the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus; it could almost be a script for Indiana Jones and the Keepers of An Amazing Bible. The discoverer, Constantine Tischendorf, somehow persuaded/extorted/tricked some Egyptians monks into giving him pieces of this Bible and they ended up in Russia, Germany & Britain. (You can read more about this exciting story in the Connected Photographer.) The website project will bring together high tech photos of all the pages and reunite the parts of this book, plus they are also transcribing and translating it, as well as giving us photos enabling us to see alterations and amendments made to the text. I think this is great news! I'm thrilled by the website and consider it to be quite a privilege to be able to actually view the pages of this very elegant, very important New Testament manuscript. Eight years ago I remember being in a Grand Rapids Bible bookstore with a colleague. We happened to find a book which was a transcribed copy of Codex Vaticanus, a manuscript equally as famous and important as Sinaiticus. My friend bought it for $120. I was quite jealous, but I knew there was no way my budget at that time would ever allow me to make such a purchase. Now, I'll have full access to Sinaiticus and not have to go broke buying a copied version. In preparing this article I discovered that The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts already has photographs of Sinaiticus and many others online (just not at the high tech quality being offered by the new Codex Sinaiticus website).

So what about this BBC article was so alarming? They claimed that Codex Sinaiticus contains "anti-semitic writings" and many "discrepancies" with the Bible as we know it. Does the Codex contain "two extra books in the New Testament"? Well, the Codex includes two post-apostolic writings, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas. I think the BBC artcle is stretching the evidence to say that the Codex includes these writings in the New Testament; no comment on the canonicity of these writings is being made. The Old Testament also "includes" the Apocryphal writings, as this was common in Greek versions of the Hebrew Old Testament. Books were hard to make in the fourth century, they wrote on every page, even if that meant adding writings!

I wouldn't agree with the BBC article that the Epistle of Barnabas is "full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit." It is certainly opposed to any sort of Judaizing of the Christian faith, but you can check out the Wikipedia article for another perspective. The BBC supports their claim by quoting Barnabas, "His blood be upon us." I guess they didn't realize that the Gospel of Matthew actually has the Jews say, "His blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25)

"The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection..." This is the most incredible claim in the BBC article and it is false. Sinaiticus does not include the "longer ending" of Mark's Gospel, but ends at Mark 16:8, at which point you will find the NIV and most modern Bible translations noting that this is the end of Mark according to the earliest manuscripts. This means that Mark's gospel lacks an account of the ascension or any resurrection appearances, but it would still be incorrect to say that Mark "omits key references to the Resurrection." The Codex Sinaiticus records Mark 16:6 including the words, "ηγερθη ουκ εϲτιν ωδε" translated, "He has risen! He is not here,"; you can see for yourself at the website! The Codex Sinaiticus also includes Matthew, Luke and John's accounts of the resurrection, and Matthew & Luke's accounts of the ascension, as well as numerous other verses in the NT testifying the the resurrection of Jesus!

I find it hard to believe that Roger Bolton of the BBC actually interviewed Bart Ehrman or David Parker. The errors in this article are beyond unacceptable. Even a Greek NT hack like me devoting a couple hours to research can show how mistaken the claims in this article are. I was surprised when Bolton claimed that "other differences concern how Jesus behaved." Really? "In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be 'angry' as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with 'compassion.'" It's not only our modern English text, but almost all of the Greek manuscripts we have of Mark 1:41 which refer to Jesus' compassion, not anger. But here's the kicker: it is NOT Codex Sinaiticus which refers to Jesus being angry, it's actually Codex Bezae of the 5th/6th century!!! Sinaiticus clearly says και ϲπλαγχνιϲθειϲ, translated "Filled with compassion...," but you don't have to take my word for it, check it out: the photo of Sinaiticus' Mark 1:41 is online.

What about "the story of the woman taken in adultery"? It is missing from the Codex as is claimed by the BBC article, but I would emphasize that John 7:53 - 8:11 is not in our earliest NT manuscripts and this is well noted in the NIV and other modern translations. The story is best understood as a Christian tradition appended to John's Gospel in later manuscripts.

Jesus does not say, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" in the Codex according to the BBC article. This is not exactly correct. These words of Luke 23:34a were originally in the Sinaiticus manuscript. Then someone editing the manuscript erased them, but then another editor put them back in! One of the amazing things being done by the Codex Sinaiticus Project is to take photos which will help reveal these layers of editing with greater clarity.

I've just shown that the Codex Sinaiticus does not make any of the changes or omissions as claimed by the BBC article. Now, I'd like to comment on the article's claim that Codex Sinaiticus is "the rival to the Bible." Not true. I would be quite willing to say that Codex Sinaiticus IS the Bible, an early 4th century Bible, copied by hand, and therefore subject to normal human copying mistakes. I could mention some of them, but rest assured, none of them are nearly as BIG as the ones falsely presented in the article! In my second year of Greek studies, I remember being taught that the pioneers of NT textual criticism, Westcott and Hort said that, 'When Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus agree (they have the same words exactly), you have the original text.' We have found many more NT manuscripts since then, but their observation still holds some weight today.

The publication of Codex Sinaiticus on the web should not give any Christian today any reason to be fearful or concerned that their faith is going to be undermined. If the Bible you read is the NIV or NLT or TNIV or or NET or NASB or NRSV, you've already been reading from Codex Sinaiticus! It has had an influence on basically every English translation of the Bible to come after the King James Version. Sure, "when the different parts" of the Codex Sinaiticus "are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible," but don't expect to find anything earth shattering. We've been comparing and contrasting Sinaiticus and another 5000+ Greek NT manuscripts for quite a long time now! Textual criticism is "the study of the manuscript evidence for a written work for which the original is no longer extant, with the intent to discern the original text" (Matthew DeMoss). I agree with other NT scholars who claim that we have the NT today to be 99.5% pure original. Not to shock you, but that's actually better than many of the works of Shakespeare!

BBC 0, CNN 1. In closing, few explain it as well as Josh McDowell. Here's part of a recent interview he gave:

Do we have any of the original New Testament documents?

McDowell: If we did they would be beyond priceless. What we have is early manuscript copies of the originals.

Then how do we know for sure what was in the original documents?

McDowell: To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original.

For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap.

Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I don’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said.