: online status :

« Christmas off from Church? | Main | Tookie denied clemency »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Interesting but I have reservations about the faithfulness of the translation.

Whilst it is beautifully poetic I discern an undercurrent of pantheist bias, particularly the "Yet free us from not being in the Present" line. A subsequent visit to the source merely sharpens my suspicions that this is coming out of non-Christocentric reflections.

My experience is the irreligious spirituality seekers have no problem with embracing Jesus spirituality, what they have a problem with is disembracing from the alternates.

Yet our spiritual crisis runs deeper than merely 'not being in the present' and not 'every vision' arises from the Source.

Maybe we could take the poetic expressiveness of this translation and rework it into something with a bit more bite.

Fair comments Matt, I suppose it's use depends on the context and interpretation... Yes you are right Neil Douglas-Klotz doesn't come from a Christian framework... however there are a number of reasons I like it (though yes maybe we could do some rewrites - I have actually rewritten one line, the reason was that it was a bit complex and not instantly understandable)... I particularly like the "Help us not forget our Source, Yet free us from not being in the Present." line because in our context it reminds us that we are called to be agents of the Kingdom now and incarnate now... not dwelling on past times, on "golden ages" yet it is vital to root our "now" in the God of ages. I also like the sending nature of the last line. For me in some ways it has more bite than the usual version... maybe because of its arcane language but particularly because this one causes us to think in ways we might not if we simply repeat the older version.

Recently a mate commented how he preferred to read Shakespearian plays rather than see them live as it allowed him more time to process it. I think it has relevance for this discussion.

I agree with you that the arcane language of most 'contemporary' translations leaves many hearers cold (myself included) so I am not against radical rewrites per se.

And from reading my blogs you'd no doubt gather I freely recontextualise non-Christian material for evangelistic purposes (a la Acts 17 - alter to the unknown God) so quasi-Christian translations are not an insurmountable problem in my opinion either.

I suppose the crux of the matter is the context. I can see this being used faithfully in a church setting provided it is grounded in a more Jesus-focussed celebration. But I can equally see it being appropriated by DIY seekers and being totally misconstrued if it is circulated sampling-style.

It highlights how knowledge is socially constructed and the importance of communal reference frames for discipelship.

Absolutely Matt. We are currently using it in the context of our "chill space" which although uses a wide range of meditation/contemplative techniques... is very clearly focussed on God/Jesus.

I'll be using this in a service in the New Year I think, but as Matt says, it will be in the context of inspirational poetry/prayer in a (hopefully) Spirit-filled worship time.

I actually like this as a paraphrase and have added it to the resources list at
I don't like the way that these things are going round claiming to be translations when they are actually paraphrases see
for a bit more comment

I opine that to get the business loans from creditors you ought to have a good motivation. However, once I have received a collateral loan, because I wanted to buy a house.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Creative Commons License
Creative Commons ©