# Eugene Peterson and "The Message"



## cris (Mar 30, 2010)

This morning I came across a message on Facebook that recommended a book bt Eugene Peterson (the author of the Bible translation "The Message")
I didn't want to let it go since it's not the first time this guy endorses "spiritual formation" writers, like Robert Foster and Phillip Yancey (what's worse, he is a professor at the Bible Seminary and, to some extent, I guess, a preacher)
So I replied that he shouldn't endorse Peterson, since he's into spiritual formation/Renovare, along to a link to the 1 star reviews of "The Message" on Amazon.
This is his answer:
"Come on Cristian G! The MESSAGE is not meant to replace the Bible - it is just a paraphrase that is mean to make the Bible more readable for some! It has its value alongside the more traditional translations!"
What do you guys think, how would you reply to this?
I should mention that I do not want to do anything in flesh, or speak without love. But I cannot understand how professors can take this lightly. And, from what I know, he is considered a conservative professor.
I can't help thinking about Paul Washer who used to say that on the judgment day, he would rather be a liberal politician than a conservative preacher.

Thx for all your posts
Cristian


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 30, 2010)

Peterson comes from a denomination that doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy, so they don't really think much of paraphrases. It sounds like your professor doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy either or the importance of having accurate translations.


----------



## cris (Mar 30, 2010)

Thx, David
Do you happen to have a link?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 30, 2010)

cris said:


> Thx, David
> Do you happen to have a link?


 
Here is a link for the PC-USA saying no to inerrancy. You have to scroll down a little to see it:

PC(USA) - Presbyterians Today Online: What Presbyterians Believe, What Presbyterians Don't Believe

I believe Peterson's "Message" came directly from his denomination's view on scripture as a whole.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 30, 2010)

*shrug*

I used to be very anti-_The Message_, but it can indeed be helpful at points. I'd never use it in regular study and certainly not from the pulpit (unless I was simply using something it said to illustrate a point), of course. I actually find Peterson's writings outside of _The Message_ to be helpful as well, but I wouldn't recommend them to new or immature believers.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 30, 2010)

raekwon said:


> *shrug*
> 
> I used to be very anti-_The Message_, but it can indeed be helpful at points. I'd never use it in regular study and certainly not from the pulpit (unless I was simply using something it said to illustrate a point), of course. I actually find Peterson's writings outside of _The Message_ to be helpful as well, but I wouldn't recommend them to new or immature believers.



Ditto. I say Peterson is at times a superb writer, a true wordsmith with good insights in many places. And I agree _The Message_ is useful for limited purposes, while admitting the danger that it can confuse some people. I own a copy and treat it sort of like a commentary. Also, I don't think we ought to automatically trash Peterson's name due to where the PC(USA) has gone on inerrancy.


----------



## cris (Mar 30, 2010)

Ok, I see.
Thx for your replies, Jack, Raeckwon.
But that means that even though Peterson is into spiritual formation (you agree with that, don't you?), endorses and quotes many others in spiritual formation and translated "The Message" leaving many phrases out that distort the text, you would still read his works because of his superb style?


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 30, 2010)

The Message shows a lack of respect for the Word as verbally inspired. I believe spiritual maturity would lead a man to show the Bible more respect than to presume to alter its words, for whatever pretense. And while you're mulling on that, have a look at Romans 9 in the Message.


----------



## timmopussycat (Mar 30, 2010)

While the denom may have trashed inerrancy Peterson was for many years a professor at Regent College, Vancouver in which position he had to affirm a theological position which, for all practical purposes, affirms inerrancy. See Introduction to Regent :: Theological Position


----------



## tommyb (Mar 30, 2010)

People just need to approach "The Message" for what it is - a commentary.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 30, 2010)

tommyb said:


> People just need to approach "The Message" for what it is - a commentary.


 
Unfortunately, many read it as their translation. Peterson could easily have published a commentary on Scripture instead.


----------



## cris (Mar 30, 2010)

"The Message" was not intended to be a commentary, but a Bible. In his own words:

"While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way.* I hoped to bring the New Testament to life* for two different types of people: those who hadn't read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become 'old hat.'" 

From Message (MSG Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com


----------



## Jack K (Mar 30, 2010)

cris said:


> Ok, I see.
> Thx for your replies, Jack, Raeckwon.
> But that means that even though Peterson is into spiritual formation (you agree with that, don't you?), endorses and quotes many others in spiritual formation and translated "The Message" leaving many phrases out that distort the text, you would still read his works because of his superb style?



No. I read him (not often, and carefully) because he has some good insights well presented. C.S. Lewis had fairly serious theological faults but several of his writings are very insightful, too. That's just one example. I even read some (gasp!) Roman Catholics like John Neuhaus. I certainly read many Reformed Baptists with whom I disagree on some points. I read a ton of Jonathan Edwards even though I think he had a few troublesome hang-ups. I read such people because they get so many other good points right!

I also like to find something good to say about someone, especially a confessing Christian brother, when it's warranted.

If I were only reading people who were entirely free of any negative label we might apply to them, I would be ill-informed and missing out on many good things. And if others applied that same standard when they picked up reading material, no one would be reading me.


----------



## David (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't think that I can ever take The Message seriously, even as a paraphrase. Examine the Lord's prayer:



Matthew 6:9-13 (MSG) said:


> ...
> Our Father in heaven,
> Reveal who you are.
> Set the world right;
> ...





Matthew 6:9-13 (KJV) said:


> ...
> Our Father which art in heaven,
> Hallowed be thy name.
> Thy kingdom come,
> ...



The tone of The Message really irks me, as does the statement "as above, so below". Reading that freaked me out, as it's a common saying among Wiccans, who I used to associate myself with. I've never heard a Christian use it before, much less in the Lord's Prayer.

The Message was quite popular at my previous church, with some leaders reading from it almost exclusively, as far as I could tell. They insisted that it made the Bible easier to understand, but also likened it to reading a regular novel. I'd certainly agree with them on the second point. While I can't stand The Message, and don't think I can read it myself with good conscience, I don't think I can fault a brother for using it, as long as he is sensible, and uses it secondary to a real translation. Judging by your friend's quote, Cristian, I'd say he's using it appropriately, but it's not a book I would ever recommend to anyone.

*Edit:* All that said, I don't think I can comment on Eugene Peterson, as I don't know much about him. Judging by The Message, it sounds like he has some faults, but I don't know any more than that, I'm afraid. The book your friend is recommending might actually be pretty good, or it might not. Perhaps if you name it here, another PBer who has read it could comment on it from a Reformed perspective. In addition to that, the Amazon reviews can also provide a good indication.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 31, 2010)

I'm not liberal when it comes to translations but I'll admit that I have enjoyed reading The Message at times and here is why: I also see it as a commentary by Mr. Peterson and should not be used for serious study or hashing out doctrine or polity BUT I do enjoy the poetic rhythm with which it is written. In translating from the original languages the sentences often lose the rhythm that the original hearers experienced in the Word. Mr. Peterson writes with the stylings of a poet and so his transference of the ideas and themes of scripture have that same style. In this sense I would compare it to The Valley of Vision, where men who are drenched in scripture write of their deepest devotions.

I would describe The Message as a modern literary and poetic styling of the themes of scripture, an obvious paraphrase to be read in conjunction with a good translation.


----------



## Andres (Mar 31, 2010)

I think the big difference comes down to those who have the discernment to view the Message as a commentary and those who actually use it as their bible and have no other translations. The posters above who have said they don't mind the translation and use it themselves are mature believers who possess solid knowledge of the scriptures. For you gentleman, I could see how you have no problem advocating the use of the translation.  for those Christians who are still babes in Christ and do not possess the discernment, then I could see how the Message could present problems for them, so I therefore see why one would be cautious about recommending it.


----------



## FenderPriest (Mar 31, 2010)

raekwon said:


> *shrug*
> 
> I used to be very anti-_The Message_, but it can indeed be helpful at points. I'd never use it in regular study and certainly not from the pulpit (unless I was simply using something it said to illustrate a point), of course. I actually find Peterson's writings outside of _The Message_ to be helpful as well, but I wouldn't recommend them to new or immature believers.


 
These are my thoughts as well. I think it should be taken on its own terms and the intent of it. Contrary to how people use it or portray Peterson, I found this little interview snippet from Peterson helpful helpful: 


> Q: Do you think The Message will be well suited for reading in worship?
> A: When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message."



source. It's interesting to note that Peterson personally uses Greek and Hebrew for personal Bible reading.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 31, 2010)

Andrew, I'm not sure I would be an ADVOCATE of The Message, I'm just saying how I have used it. I have heard it read from the pulpit, I wouldn't want to say that use of it, it is NOT the Word of God.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Mar 31, 2010)

Chapell in his preaching class at Covenant recommends _The Message_ for what it's for. It is not a replacement nor even a good translation but can put things in a certain light to help. It is a tool not THE tool. Just like a hammer it can be used for good or evil... I see _The Message_ as a block of wood in the tool box.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 31, 2010)

To me the message is like one of the childrens books called "Illustrated classic editions". It is condensed, and includes only the things that Peterson wanted to include. It is not scripture, it shouldn't be sold alongside bibles. Anyone who owns a store and places it with the bibles should be ashamed of themselves for lying to the public. It should only be sold in the christian inspiration section. It is basically a book about the bible.


----------



## cris (Mar 31, 2010)

Thanks everyone for your replies.
It looks like about half of the replies are in favor of the "Message" in a way or another.
I wouldn't have imagined, but anyway, let's stop here with the discussion
Thx again


----------



## AThornquist (Mar 31, 2010)

Meh. I hate when Scripture is twisted and caused to say what it doesn't say. Romans 9 removed any desire of mine to read that book.


----------



## dudley (Apr 2, 2010)

I think "The Message" shows a lack of respect for the inspired Word of God in scripture and thus the Bible.


----------

