Previous posts: The winner’s wreath | A wilderness of words | Deeds of doom!

* * * * *

This summer I’ve been reading through some of the later letters of the New Testament, namely those of James and Peter. One of my recent book acquisitions was a Library Edition of the New English Bible NT, which proved to be an upgrade in binding only, as the footnotes and annotations are identical to those in my NEB Oxford Study Edition (unlike in the OT, where the Library Edition reportedly does contain additional reference material). Nonetheless, I’ve been reading the NT in the NEB and enjoying it quite a bit, as you might expect.

The passages on the depravity of the tongue in James 3 caught my attention with their florid language and imagery. What follows is a short look at several verses, comparing the NEB to multiple modern translations.

NEB: James 3:1-2	REB
My brothers, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach shall ourselves be judged with greater strictness. All of us often go wrong; the man who never says a wrong thing is a perfect character, able to bridle his whole being.	My friends, not many of you should become teachers, for you may be certain that we who teach will ourselves face greater judgement. All of us go wrong again and again; a man who never says anything wrong is perfect and is capable of controlling every part of his body.
I want to focus on the change in the latter part of verse 2 where the NEB follows the traditional KJV rendering (cf. RSV/ESV, NASB, NRSV) in using “bridle” as a translation for the Greek chalinagōgeō, while the REB updates this to “controlling”. Presumably the equestrian reference has been deemed too arcane for modern, idiomatic readers, as virtually every other functional translation includes a similar rendering as the REB. The bridle, of course, is the contraption that goes over the horse’s head, holding the bit in the horse’s mouth and attaching to the reins. Is this really too difficult for the modern reader to understand without it being painted over? By doing so, the functional translations sever a delightful connection between this verse and the following one (see next), where James uses the illustration of the controlling power of a horse’s bit. This transition seems too logical and natural to ignore through a semantic equivalent.
NEB: James 3:3-5a	NLTse
If we put bits into horses’ mouths to make them obey our will, we can direct their whole body. Or think of ships: large they may be, yet even when driven by strong gales they can be directed by a tiny rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. So with the tongue. It is a small member but it can make huge claims.	We can make a large horse go wherever we want by means of a small bit in its mouth. And a small rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot chooses to go, even though the winds are strong. In the same way, the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches.
The NLT’s convention of breaking down the source texts into bite-size morsels conveys much the same general meaning as the NEB, but I can’t help but feel that the logic of the passage has been weakened. The NLT drops the “obey/will” in favor of “go wherever we want”, which feels somewhat more whimiscal or capricious than directed. The NEB admittedly is awkward here, especially in verse 4 - somewhat cleaned up in the REB revision: Or think of a ship: large though it may be and driven by gales, it can be steered by a very small rudder on whatever course the helmsman chooses. My preference for accurate nautical terminology has already been documented; needless to say, the use of “gales” and “helmsman” earns points in my book. The latter is perhaps a little more precise than “pilot” in that the helmsman is the one who actually steers the ship, while a pilot is more of a local guide with the authority of a ship’s captain, telling the helmsman where to go in order to navigate a particular passage of water. That said, often the roles are combined from a functional sense, especially where a local pilot is not required. But I suspect this is more than translators need to take into account - I simply prefer the traditional language and welcome it in the NEB. Finally, by translating the Greek melos as “thing” instead “member” or “part of the body”, the NLT loses the comparative aspect of the size of the tongue to the overall body.
NEB: James 3:5b-6	HCSB
What an immense stack of timber can be set ablaze by the tiniest spark! And the tongue is in effect a fire. It represents among our members the world with all its wickedness; it pollutes our whole being; it keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot, and its flames are fed by hell.	Consider how large a forest a small fire ignites. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among the parts of our [bodies]; it pollutes the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is set on fire by hell
Compare the use of adjectives between the NEB and HCSB: “immense/tiniest” and “large/small”. How drab is the latter, while the former immediately conjures a more active illustration of a fire, crackling into a blazing roar that echoes the “huge claims” and “grand speeches” of verse 5a. The NEB noted “What a huge forest…” as a textual variant to “stack of timber” - though that would have created an awkward repetition of the adjective “huge” in 5a/b. I might humbly suggest “swath” instead of “stack” as a mediating translation between the two approaches, with “timber” as a literary image of a forest. The HCSB is one of the few translations to use “pollute” in verse 6 - most opt for a variant of “corrupt” or “defile”. The Greek is spiloō, which means “to make a stain or spot” in a moral sense. The study notes to the NEB Oxford Study Edition state that the translation “wheel of our existence” in verse 6 is a reference to Greek mystery thought meaning the whole of our existence, from beginning to end. Some take this as support for the idea of reincarnation, but that clearly is beyond the pale of Christianity and presumably beyond what James had in mind. Finally, the NEB’s literary quality shines through again with the alliterative “flames are fed”, drawing out the all-consuming quality of sin and wickedness, just as fire consumes every inch of a forest unless checked.
NEB: James 3:7-8	TNIV
Beasts and birds of every kind, creatures that crawl on the ground or swim in the sea, can be subdued and have been subdued by mankind; but no man can subdue the tongue. It is an intractable evil, charged with deadly venom.	All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by human beings, but no one can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison
First, I want to briefly comment on the rolling alliteration in the NEB: beasts/birds, creatures/crawl, swim/seas. This type of poetic prose, continued from the previous verse (”flames are fed”), elevates the English language beyond the pedestrian list of beasts illustrated by the TNIV. The literary characteristics of the word choices make them seem deliberate and my memory naturally finds in them an allusion to the Creation accounts in Genesis 1: Genesis 1:26-28 (NEB) — Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ The question then begs: did the TNIV translations fail to underscore an allusion to Genesis 1 in James 3:7 or did the NEB translators take liberties with the Greek text to draw out this connection? The two phrases that stick out in the NEB are “creatures that crawl on the ground” and “swim in the sea”, translated as “reptiles” and “sea creatures”, respectively, by the TNIV. The former is translated from the Greek herpeton, which generally describes “a creeping animal, reptile”; the equivalent Hebrew seems to be remes, which permeates the Genesis creation account as “creeping thing” in traditional translations. The latter is from the Greek adjective enalios, which means “that which is in the sea, marine”. In these cases, the NEB’s choice of verbose nouns and verbs to translate what can be more simply described does seem to be deliberately creating an echo of Genesis 1. With that conclusion in mind, we look at the Greek damazō (NEB: “subdue”, TNIV: “tame”). The NEB’s rendering more definitely recalls the Creation language of Genesis 1 quoted above, while the TNIV (and many other translations) anticipate perhaps Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”. Strong’s defines damazō as “to tame” or “curb, restrain”, which certainly would seem to lean toward the TNIV as a more literal translation, though “subdue” as a synonym for “restrain” is well within the scope of possibility, and fits with a Creation motif. Finally, the NEB’s translation of thanatephoros ios as “deadly venom” is a striking allusion to the serpent of Genesis 3, unifying a theme across these two verses that seemingly ties the evil of the tongue to the fall of Creation. And indeed, unifying this entire passage in James with the contrast of the serpent’s deadly venom with the perfect character of a man who never says a wrong thing (3:2).

Concluding thoughts

James’ descent from simply cautioning teachers regarding judgment to perhaps finding an image of the Fall in the deadly venom of the tongue is sudden and vicious. The images, metaphors and hyperbole are mixed together in a literary brew that demands language as artful and colorful as the jumble of images conjured up in our imaginations. The NEB navigates this passage with aplomb, weaving words together with suggestive allusions that revel in semantic meaning. The arc from the perfect teacher to the relentless evil of the tongue is captured in the images of the bridle, bit, rudder, blazing hellfire and fiery course of our lives, all set in relief against the glory of our God-given mandate to subdue creation as its sovereign masters.

A glory, of course, that we have all fallen short of. All, but Christ that is; He who now reigns over Creation as Lord and Master is the only one who has mastered the tongue and doused the flames of the curse with living water. Praise God!

As such, I’ve been increasingly drawn towards the moral wisdom messages found in the letters of James and Peter. We’ve been covering 2 Peter 1 in church this summer, so there’s undoubtedly some influence there, but this goes beyond that, I think. This past Sunday, after the boys had woken up and gone down to the basement to carry on with their general chaos-making, I had a few quiet moments to read in the kitchen before my wife got up and preparations for church began. Without a deliberate reading plan in mind, I opened to James. Should it have been any surprise to me then that the heart of the message at church was James 2:26?

“As the body is dead when there is no breath left in it, so faith divorced from action is dead.” (REB)

Or more familiarly, “faith without works is dead.”

Our senior pastor was away, so the message was delivered by our friend, Micah, who is the leader of SOULstice, a post-modern outreach of the church. His sermon was based on Philippians 2:1-18 and he gave an impassioned challenge to the church: get off your duffs and put your faith into action in the local community, not just the global missions programs that are well supported. It’s one thing to open our pocketbooks and support various programs; however, as Philippian imitators of Christ, our life as the collective body of Christ is to deny ourselves and give ourselves away in service to others where we are, not just where others are going in far-off lands.

If I might recast his words into a baseball analogy: the church is not home base, with the goal being to bring the unsaved into the church and score runs - rather, the church is the dugout from where the players are sent onto the field. The church is the means, not the end.

That seems like all well and good basic Christianity, but sometimes you need it thrown in your face in a different format to renew the spirit. Micah’s good at that and it was reviving to be challenged corporately in the same vein where the Spirit has been leading me individually.

My prayer is that the faith that I share even with demons would be put into action that reveals a Holy Spirit-filled life.

Update: for some additional thoughts on the impact of a working Church, see Chris Fann’s latest post on Koinonia.

I’m hoping that this will be a semi-regular translation comparison series, looking at alternatives to the NIV for use in the pews. For this post, I’ve presented the NIV, ESV, HCSB and REB translations, with the TNIV changes to the NIV noted with [brackets] following the NIV text (italicized). Red text highlights those areas where the different translations’ text differs from the NIV - note, however, that I have not highlighted strictly gender language changes. This is primarily because my pastor tends to inclusive-ize the NIV text from the pulpit, but also because I think we’re able to parse differences in pronouns a little more easily than nouns and verbs. Feel free to comment if you don’t agree.

I want to also say at the start that I am not making a value judgment on the accuracy or correctness of the NIV. I am only using it as my base text for comparison because that is what my church uses. In comparing other translations to the NIV, I am only trying to understand which ones offer the best opportunity for complementary reading in a live worship scenario.

The scripture preached this past week was from 2 Peter 1:3-8; I’ve included verse 9 below as well.

Verses 3-4:

The TNIV has a minimal number of changes to the NIV text, though in these initial verses, we see one of the more significant differences among translations. The TNIV has taken two Greek nouns, zoe and eusebeia, and combined them into an adjective/noun pair in English. The Greek zoe means an animated and vigorous life, while eusebeia means reverence or piety toward God. I’m going to try and not quibble about why these have been translated into “life” and “godliness”, respectively, but would argue that TNIV’s “a godly life” is more bland, albeit perhaps more readable, than the NIV/HCSB. Our pastor described eusebeia as “worship rightly directed”, which certainly suggests what the REB (and NEB) is getting at, though I’m not sure “true religion” has the same connotation that it might have had a few decades ago.

The REB proved distracting in the middle of verse 4 as well with its depiction of lust (Gk. epithymia) as something like a virus that has infected and corrupted the world. The Greek means to crave or desire what is forbidden; adding “evil”, as the NIV/TNIV/HCSB do, seems to be somewhat of a value-add interpretation. The REB does nicely rearrange the text in a bad news/good news format, rather than ending with “evil desires”. This reordering then mirrors the opening phrase of verse 3.

However, for all the positives that might be gleaned from the REB, it is significantly different from the NIV and does not facilitate the read-along quality that I’m looking at here.

Verses 5-7:

For the difference between “add” (NIV/TNIV/REB) and “supplement” (ESV/HCSB), the Greek is epichoregeo, which typically means to aid or supply someone with something they need; the root choregeo has the sense of being a worship leader. In that sense, we are to minister to our faith, earnestly supplying it with the things that it needs, which Peter goes on to list. An alliterative translator might choose a sense like “feed your faith with virtue/goodness”… However, the NRSV gets this one correct, I think, with “you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness [...]“.

After this, we start playing the “list of adjectives” game. The biggest variance comes for the Greek hupomone, which is translated as “perserverance” (T/NIV), “steadfastness” (ESV), “endurance” (HCSB) and “fortitude” (REB). And of course, philadelphia is no longer “brotherly love” in any of these translations, gender accurate or not.

Regrettably, the NIV (and strangely the TNIV) uses the most awkward grammer in building the list of things that faith needs. All of the other translations are a grammatical improvement (except, perhaps, the ESV’s connecting “and’s”), and all but the REB have the same adjective order as the NIV. When pastor reads “and to knowledge, self-control” in verse 6, I can read “knowledge with self-control” in the HCSB or ESV and not have to mentally flip the order of what I’m reading with what I’m hearing. So, again, the REB is disqualified in a NIV environment.

Verses 8-9:

This has to be the final nail in the REB coffin as an alternative to the NIV. The passage presents the reverse thought of the other translations, perhaps to the same meaning, but completely adrift when the pastor goes into a word study on “ineffective” (Gk. argos) and “unproductive” (Gk. akarpos).

I have to confess that I like the fruit imagery in the Bible when it comes to being productive, so the ESV and HCSB appeal (peel? hah!) to me. The HCSB is remarkably close, almost identical, to the ESV in verse 8.

Finally, in verse 9, the ESV strikes with one of the most sensible renderings I’ve seen from that translation with regards to esti tuphlos muopazo , especially as one who suffers both physical nearsightedness and farsightedness as to be legally blind. I love Strong’s definition of tuphlos: “mentally blind”; Vine’s goes on to qualify muopazo as “he of whom it is true is blind in that he cannot discern spiritual things, he is near-sighted in that he is occupied in regarding worldly affairs.”

The HCSB misses, I think, with “shortsighted”, which has more of a future planning or thinking connotation than one of clarity of perception.

Conclusions

Obviously the TNIV is an easy choice as a pew alternative to the NIV. Equally, we can say that, of these translations, the REB has the greatest variance in rendering and was the more difficult edition to read along with.

That leaves the ESV and HCSB to ponder. While the major points of variance seem about equal, I’m giving the nod to the HCSB because it generally uses better modern English grammer than the ESV, which retains the traditional renderings of the Tyndale line. As an idiomatic English translation, the HCSB is closer in approach to the NIV than is the ESV.

It is worth noting that the HCSB was conceived, in part, as a replacement for the NIV in Southern Baptist Convention materials (to avoid licensing fees), so it makes sense that the translation would not stray too far from their previous standard. That said, there are many nods to the ESV/RSV line as well, as we saw in verse 8 above. It’s likely that the HCSB would work equally well in an ESV church.

Next week I’ll take my HCSB to church and see how it goes. If that doesn’t work, then the TNIV probably makes the most sense.

• Sermon links: MP3 | Windows Media

Using the examples of Paul presenting to different audiences in Acts 13 (Jews) and 17 (Greeks) and working from 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, Micah taught that Christians have been entrusted with the truth of God’s unchanging word and the Church has been commissioned to communicate the gospel to an everchanging world as Christ’s ambassadors. In order to effectively engage the world and present the gospel message, we have to be constantly aware of the context of culture around us.

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, TNIV)

Bearing in mind Romans 12:2, the church is not to become the culture of the world around us, but we have to thoroughly understand it and be sensitive to it in order to engage with it and most effectively present the gospel so that the Holy Spirit can begin working.

It was within this context that Micah presented the concepts that are at the heart of his specific ministry focus, SOULstice, which focuses on a “postmodern” experiential community:

The name of our faith community came from the desire to seek and enjoy our Creator who desires to continually renew our being, our person, and our soul. We desire to experience the rhythm of change together. Every spring new things … spring up from the earth, reaching, receiving, and expressing towards what is bright. There is a cadence of change through the seasons. What fell in the autumn, and sat still in the winter, will be the very thing God will use to nourish the new things to come. In this way we pray that God will continually be molding and shaping us into His perfect image. (about SOULstice)

Do your churches have similar efforts? I realize that there are whole movements, e.g. the Emergent Church, built around “postmodern experience”, however, my understanding of them has tempered by the general criticism that these groups or movements put experience first instead of the message of the gospel.

I have not yet been to a SOULstice service, so I’m not qualified to describe the actual differences in practice. However, as long as the message is coming from the gospel to shape the experience of the group, as Micah taught, and they are not trying to shape the truth of the gospel through experience, then I’m inclined to support the effort.

I’ve seen mention of the author many times in various blogs, but have never investigated further. However, I’m always interested in perspectives on end times and the afterlife, so a book promising a “rethinking” will get my attention.

It will be interesting to contrast what this book has to say with Randy Alcorn’s book, Heaven, which positions what is traditionally known as “heaven” as a temporary stop on the way to our ultimate destination of living out task-oriented lives on the redeemed New Earth.

What Wright evidently offers that Alcorn does not are thoughts on what his view of heaven means to life in the here and now, especially for the Church. I still have my copy of Jürgen Moltmann’s “In the End–The Beginning: The Life of Hope” to read as well - perhaps this trio of books would make an interesting combination of views to blog about.

Anyway, I thought the TNIV users among us would be interested to know that the ECC was featuring that translation for their Verse of the Day site widget. I did follow some quick search links and discovered that the ECC was the first group to whom Zondervan gave pastoral gift copies of the TNIV. I don’t know if there’s been any official recommendation or commendation of the translation to the various Covenant churches, but there’s at least that denomination supporting the new translation.

As for me, I’ve been drifting again toward using the TNIV as my Sunday Bible - the differences between it and the NIV that my current church uses are easily overcome and I’m coming to terms with the differences in gender language, as my comments on TC’s blog might indicate:

I don’t know if I’d include the NIV with the other two. The HCSB and ESV were explicitly translated in conformation to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, while the NIV was translated at a time when “man” was still an acceptable gender-neutral term. It’s absolutely critical that we not rush to [gender] judgment on older translations produced under different [cultural] language contexts.

[The] divide between the NIV and TNIV is probably much less than we see it today, given the contextual meanings of the respective language. Where the NIV uses “man” and the TNIV uses “human beings”, where the NIV uses “brothers” and the TNIV uses “brothers and sisters” - those may be exactly the same meaning, just seen from a different vantage point in the evolution of language.

Inside I was ripping myself to shreds, frustrated to point of questioning the fruits of my spirit, questioning whether I belonged at church or not. I went and, after dropping the boys off for Sunday school, found a corner of the sanctuary to sit in, trying to find a quiet place to rest and get reoriented.

I was mute during the music worship, fighting the words. Reflecting, reflecting, reflecting hard before communion… pleading to bear the fruit of the Spirit and not the foul garbage that had been evident earlier. My heart screamed as the woman in the pew in front of me read her junk mail during communion, wafer in one hand, Father’s Day ad flyer in the other.

Pastor came to the front and began his remarks. “… some of you may be having a crisis of Spirit and don’t know which way to turn … you may be questioning whether you even have the Spirit in you … you desire to be full, to experience life fully.” The sermon was on Ephesians 5:18 and being filled by the Spirit, the conclusion of a lengthy series that’s been taught on the Holy Spirit.

15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 5:15-20, TNIV)

At the start of the day, I felt like I had been physically and spiritually cut open and all the crap revealed, so that I experienced the extreme negative of being empty in the Spirit. Then overflowing with goodness as the word was preached and taught and I was filled with the Spirit. I will try to post a little more on the sermon specifics later this week, but the reality is that the specifics of what was said mattered little; the reality is that my heart was prepared for the message and I received it.

The preparation was painful, but at the finish of the service, I sang (finally!) and made music from my heart to the Lord, experiencing the joy of worship again. Amen!

John Hobbins posted an excerpt of Senator Obama’s explanation for resigning as a member from Trinity UCC. I don’t have a specific issue with him leaving his longtime church home, but his comments on what he’s looking for in his family’s next church struck me particularly cold:

[...] what I want to do in church is I want to be able to take Michelle and my girls, sit in a pew quietly, hopefully get some nice music, some good reflection, praise God, thank Him for all of the blessings He has given our family, put some money in the collection plate, maybe afterwards go out and grab some brunch, have my girls go to Sunday school. That’s what I am looking for.

Milk milk milk! This is church as the Sunday social club. What about strengthening your understanding of God’s word, Senator? Becoming a more mature Christian? Learning what wisdom the Bible instructs us about? Surely these might be beneficial to you as a man, a father, a husband, a Senator, perhaps even a President?

But no, the good Senator seems to feel that a church is a place to go and feel good about yourself. Is the Bible taught in your church, Senator? Or is church a social platform to see and be seen? I see no difference in what the Senator has described and going to the park, listening to a free concert, dropping a few dollars into a fund raising bucket, then getting ice cream for the kids. Do you?

A previously unknown (to me) blog, Inhabitatio Dei, has posted an interesting matrix description of ecclesiology, i.e. the study of the Church. The blogger writes:

From my perspective there are two basic polarities which define the shape of a given ecclesiology. The first is what I term the High-Low polarity, the second I refer to as the Strong-Weak polarity. Within this framework any given ecclesial body could potentially fall in one of four categories, High-Strong, High-Weak, Low-Strong, and Low-Weak.

From the descriptions given, I’d have to say that I’m a Low-Weak, which is undoubtedly the result of growing up in a Restorationist Christian Church environment; I presently attend a Baptist church for many of those same qualities:

Low Church Ecclesiology: Generally suspicious of history and tradition. Emphasizes the Bible as the church’s ultimate authority and preaching is more central then the Eucharist or the liturgy. Churches tend to be structured congregationally (i.e. governed by the local congregation itself or through one or more elders appointed by congregations). Emphasizes salvation as the subjective appropriation and confession of faith in Christ. Generally holds to believers’ baptism. Close connection between salvation, baptism, and committed discipleship in community.

Weak Ecclesiology: Holds a humble and limited view of God’s role for the church in his plan of salvation. The church exists to strengthen and instruct the believer and to witness to God’s work of salvation that takes place solely through God’s action. The church does not participate in God’s action, but points away from itself to God’s action outside of human effort. The emphasis is on the invisible church, the universal body of all people who believe in Christ throughout the world. All Christians are members of this church and that is what is primary. Membership in a local congregation is for edification and growth, but is not central to salvation.

I highlighted the descriptions that stood out to me.

Perhaps as the result of this recent post on ministry, the key question I gravitated toward thinking about was whether the work of the Holy Spirit is directly bound (limited?) to the activities of the Church (strong ecclesiology) or not (weak ecclesiology). I tend to hold the position that it is the Church’s responsibility to proclaim the gospel, but that everything beyond that is the autonomous work of the Holy Spirit and we, as Christians and the Church, ought not try to take credit for that.

The Paschal greeting is an Easter custom among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians, as well as among several Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians.

I’ve used this greeting on Easter for all of my life, at least that I can remember†, and basically assumed that it was a standard Christian thing. So this Orthodox focus in Wikipedia’s notes has thrown me and I wonder how extensive its use actually is? What Protestant denominations use it regularly? Certainly there’s a distinction between personal greetings and liturgical use — “He is risen/indeed” was the focus of a responsive reading in today’s services, which, it must be noted, our (Baptist) church rarely does… that is, responsive reading.

†Despite the presence of several Old-Believer and Russian Orthodox communities in south-central Alaska, I don’t recall them having too much influence on the rest of the local communities, much less the non-Orthodox churches of the area, such as mine. They pretty much kept to their own locations and only came into “town” when supplies were needed.