Stefan Paas is a Dutch missiologist. Pilgrims and Priests: Christian Mission in a Post-Christian Society (2019) is a modified English version of a book originally published in Dutch. It is his attempt to answer the “big question” that logically precedes any missiological enquiry, namely, “What is your ecclesiology?”

It is certainly one of the big questions that needs to be asked—theoretically—before we set about trying to extend the reach and influence of the church. What is it exactly that we are extending? What is the church? What use is it in a progressively secular, post-Christian world? We know the role that the church has played historically, but in a rapidly changing cultural and indeed human context we find ourselves having to face up to the stark question: does the church have a future? So, yes, we need a credible and sustainable ecclesiology.

People who believe in the “internal consistency of Scripture,” Craig Bartholomew says, are likely to be troubled by a handful of sayings in the Synoptic Gospels that seem “at first glance” to mean that the “second coming” would happen during the lifetime of at least some of the immediate group of his disciples. Bartholomew examines the three basic forms that this teaching takes with the aim of demonstrating that “there are reasonable explanations for all three.”

This may not add up to very much, but I’ll give it a go….

The “gospel of Jesus Christ” begins, according to Mark, with the appearance of John baptising people from Jerusalem and Judea in the river Jordan. Mark sees this as some sort of fulfilment of what was “written in Isaiah the prophet”:

Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, a voice crying in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. (Mk. 1:2-3)

Does Paul identify Israel’s Messiah with God in Romans 9:5? I’ve examined this passage a couple of times (see links below) and have been more or less of the opinion that the grammar says perhaps, but the development of thought says no.

Since we’ve been looking at Brian Simmons’ The Passion Translation, let’s start with his characteristically periphrastic take on the verse:

I continue with my thankless defence of Brian Simmons’ The Passion Translation against the battalion of “highly respected scholars” that Mike Winger has “hired” to wage war against it. Why do I do it? I don’t know. Partly because in an internecine theological spat like this there is invariably error on both sides, and although there is not much to be said in support of Simmons’ methodology, criticism of the translation has struck me as rather weak. But also partly because it provides an opportunity to draw attention to the fact that both The Passion Translation and conservative-Reformed commentary repeatedly miss the historical point of the New Testament. There. I said it.

Mike Winger has orchestrated a comprehensive assault on Brian Simmons and The Passion Translation. He is certainly not the only person to criticise the book, but he seems to have a bigger bee buzzing around in his bonnet than most. He has lined up some serious scholars to pass judgment on a number of the books in the translation, including Douglas Moo on Romans. You can watch the video interviews or download the research papers.

I hadn’t heard of The Passion Translation until a friend got in touch wondering whether we should be reading it. It’s a contemporary “translation” of the New Testament, along with the Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs, produced more or less single handedly by Brian Simmons. It’s available on Bible Gateway.

The work has generated a lot of controversy since it came out in 2015. I’ve looked at bits of it and can’t say I’ve found anything really outrageous. There are certainly some idiosyncrasies, some rather preposterous “insights” into the meaning words and phrases; there is perhaps an egalitarian bias, and the language has a distinctly charismatic colouring to it. But I haven’t yet come across anyone complaining of serious theological or doctrinal error. Am I missing something?