Just finished reading The Story of My Experiments with Truth by Gandhi, which is his autobiography and the story of his early years. In it he talks much of his views on, and experiments with, non-violence, vegetarianism, and religion.

His discipline in pursing what he perceived as truth is admirable, and his vision of simple living and eating is one I find compelling.

Of particular interest were his views on religion though. When asked once whether he was a Hindu, his reply is well-known:

Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew

In his autobiography he speaks much of "God", and much of "Truth". Yet it is difficult to understand how he decides what Truth is, and who God is.

Surprisingly, in my view, going by this book, it seems that Truth for Gandhi was whatever his moral intuition and reason decided. As such, his God was a silent God, and his life was spent struggling with great zeal to achieve purity on his own terms.

A man I would certainly have enjoyed reasoning with, and a book worth reading to understand something this enigmatic figure in history.

A snippet from James Snyder's biography of Tozer, AW Tozer: In Pursuit of God, pp.126-129:

I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?"

And I'll never forget the advice he gave. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God.

Is there not great truth in this? I know that I find it much easier to turn my back on God and discuss abstract doctrines and propositions about God with others. But far more difficult I find it to turn to God, to the living God, and commune with Him. Here my doctrines and theological systems do not help, and here the emptiness is laid bare (that said, of course I do not mean the two are opposed to one another).

Chapter 1 in Tozer's The Pursuit of God ends with a fittingly humble prayer:

O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am painfully conscious of my need of further grace. I am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still. Show me Thy glory, I pray, so that  I may know Thee indeed. Begin, in your mercy, a new work of love within me. Say to my soul, "Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away!" Then give me the grace to rise and follow Thee up from this misty lowland where I have wandered so long. In Jesus' Name, Amen.

.. let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross ... (Hebrews 12:2, TNIV)

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.

Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, suggests that it is. In an article in the SMH he questions why polgamy is a crime. Some snippets:

[...] Why in the liberal 21st century must we live a lie in relationships? And why do we continue to maintain a facade that monogamy is a perfect institution, when studies consistently reveal that most men admit to having affairs? Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.

Australian law has maintained the Justinian facade that a marriage is one man and one woman, and that every other relationship must be kept secret. [...]

Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband's time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner. [...]

[...] Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?

Full article here.

I've been mulling over the formal-vs-dynamic/functional translation debate which has flared up again recently, and wondering how we can discuss it better.

Most lay-persons I know think, logically, that literal is better. Thus, because the ESV is "more literal" than other versions it must be "better" and more accurate. Which as far as I can tell is totally wrong.

So perhaps instead of saying "formal equivalence" we should say partial translation, and perhaps instead of "dynamic/functional equivalence" we should say full translation.

(Yes, I lean toward the functional equivalence side of things).

Because is this not what it really boils down to? Do not "literal" translations deliberately leave meaning untranslated, for various reasons, and generally argue that pastors and teachers should fill in the gap and do the remaining translation/teaching to help us understand it?

Whereas functional equivalence strives to translate all of the meaning. Of course, this is ultimately impossible because subtle meaning is always lost. But the aim and philosophy is to achieve a full translation.

I suspect proponents of literal translation will reject this language. But I'm tempted to use these labels because they seem to be the most accurate way to explain to a lay-person the problems with formal/literal methods.

What do you think? Is this an unfair or wildly inaccurate stance to take?