McDonalds as a Religion???

   The McDonald brothers opened their drive in restaurant in San Bernardino , California in 1940 complete with car hops.  The more they promoted their barbecue the more their customers asked for hamburgers.  So, they closed their doors, remodeled, fired the 20 car hops and reopened with the format that we associate with McDonalds today.  They struggled for awhile but things eventually took off and they opened at other locations.  By 1954 a milk shake machine salesman named Ray Kroc was so impressed with their success that he secured from the brothers the rights to franchise their name and business nationwide.  Ray opened the first "Golden Arches" in Illinois in 1955.  By 1961 he was rich enough to buy out the McDonald brothers' interest in the business and it was all his.

   The first one that I ever recall eating at was on the north edge of Ft. Wayne, Indiana on U.S. 30.  It was on our way to and from college at Winona Lake, Indiana.  There were no tables or chairs, just a small area to walk in and order at a window and then go back to your car.  The burgers were, as I recall, 15 cents.  We had no idea at that time that this would become the largest restaurant chain in the world!  The next step in this journey for us was a magazine article in the late 70's or possibly the early 80's.

  The magazine was "Natural History" (an unlikely place to find an article about McDonalds).  The title of the article was something like "McDonalds As A Religion".  Before you dismiss this as preposterous consider the following.  In the days before "fast food" places like McDonalds, Burger King (started about the same time as McDonalds), and Wendys (1969), selecting a place to eat, especially when you were traveling, could be a very risky "roll of the dice".  Would you get a good meal or would you get ptomaine poisoning?  Was the kitchen clean or . . . ? 

   On the other hand, when you were traveling and you wanted to attend church on a Sunday morning, you would go to a church of the denomination to which you belonged.  If you were, for example, Lutheran you would go to a Lutheran Church knowing there would be no surprises.  You knew exactly what the liturgy (order and form of service) would be.  Thus, the Golden Arches, when they appeared on the landscape, told you "no surprises here; you know exactly what you will be getting and what it will cost".  Anyone coming of age on this side of the advent of McDonalds cannot appreciate what it was like for the first time to have a restaurant chain available just about anywhere you traveled that would be as predictable and free of unpleasant surprises as the liturgy in your church denomination.
 
   Fast forward to the present and the continued growth of McDonalds as a food service giant is still largely due to being predictable and free of unpleasant surprises.  There is perhaps another way in which McDonalds resembles a religion.  People crave what is often called "fellowship".  On any given morning what do you see at many McDonalds?   You see a "gathering of geezers" having fellowship!  Retired men, and often women also, gather at McDonalds for "fellowship".  And just as good churches "feed" you healthy spiritual food the menu at McD's is decidedly more healthy than just the "burger, shakes and fries" offered in the early days. 

   The Golden Arches are like a church in some other ways also.  Most churches gladly welcome a large group of traveling visitors to drop in on a Sunday service.  So, if you are traveling with a bus full of young people you don't have to think twice.  Stop at McDonalds and you know you will, with rare exceptions, be welcome.  One other observation:  it seems to me that more and more McDonalds restaurants have ceased to be "fast food" places.  Now it's "take a number and wait for your food".  That may or may not make McD's like a church but it is not necessarily bad.  I have been part of men's Bible studies that met in a back corner of the dining room of McD's.  If we are anything less than supremely grateful to God for the abundant, affordable food and clean restrooms available to us at this moment of history then we are . . . well you know.

   

  


 

   

  

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS: A BRIEF HISTORY AND SUMMARY

   The Father of English Bible translation was William Tyndale. He was executed in 1536 for the "crime" of putting the Bible into the language of ordinary people.  Ninety per cent of his words were retained in the KJV of 1611 and 75% were retained in the RSV of 1952.  Following his work came the Geneva Bible, the one that the Puritans brought to America with them.  The Authorized ("King James") Version of 1611 only slowly replaced the Geneva Bible.  The King James Version holds a place of great importance in the history of English speaking people.  I memorized extensive portions of it and still quote it often.   But, the claims of some people that it is "more accurate" or based on a "better Greek text" are utterly false and misleading.

   I sympathize with those who want to use the KJV because of familiarity with it or appreciation for its history.  But, I strongly recommend that they use the best edition of the KJV that was ever printed.  That was the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967.  It was essentially the KJV but with two very great improvements.  Archaic (no longer used) words like "kine" (cattle) were updated.  Second, the most egregious mistranslations were corrected.  "Vile bodies" in Philippians 3:21 was corrected to "lowly bodies".   The 1967 Scofield is no longer in print but copies are easily obtained on EBay.

   I have no respect at all for the New King James Version.  It is one of the most unnecessary versions ever done.  If you substantially change the KJV you no longer have the KJV and it dishonest to call it the "New" KJV.  It is simply a modern speech version based on the LEAST accurate texts that we have.  If you like the KJV by all means use the Scofield Reference Bible of 1967.  Also, its footnotes are a huge improvement over the original Scofield of 1909.  The notes on Genesis chapter 1 are excellent.
   

  The first alternative to the KJV for Americans was the American Standard Version of 1901.  It was replaced in 1971 by the New American Standard Bible.  That version is accurate and trustworthy but it has two main faults: 1) following the Hebrew and Greek word order makes for clumsy English sentences; and 2) making every verse a separate paragraph was a huge mistake.  It affects the way the reader understands the text.  This was also a main fault of nearly all editions of the KJV.  The NASB would be 100% improved if its text were put into normal paragraphs.
  

  The Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 but it was not accepted by most conservative, evangelical Christians.  That is discussed further down in this blog.

   The New International Version of 1978 involved more qualified scholars than any version in the history of the English language (105 as compared to 30-40 on all the others).  It involved multiple cross checking and final reviews more than any other version. The translators followed the method of translation that missionaries had been using with other languages for many years. It was well on its way to becoming the standard Bible of English speaking people . . . until . . . the committee that controls the text began to "tinker" with it.  First in 1984 and again in 2011 they changed the text.  The 1984 edition is OK but unnecessary and the 2011 edition got into "gender inclusive" language.  I use the original 1978 and WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS I LIVE.  All changes in the NIV should have been totally in the footnotes and the text should have been left alone!

    The same mistake is being made with the English Standard Version.  It is reported that they are going to tinker with the text.  The ESV, to understand it, is nothing but a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1952.  The RSV, while generally accurate, was never accepted by many evangelicals because of obvious liberal bias in several passages.  The ESV is probably the best translation currently IN PRINT  but it is no improvement at all over the original NIV of 1978.  If someone needs a Bible I urge them to go to EBay and get a like new 1978 NIV.

   I will not discuss other translations currently available, not because they do not have value, but because nearly all of them are "gender inclusive" translations to suit the feminist agenda by eliminating, as much as possible, the words "man" and "men" and male pronouns.  I do not speak against them, I just do not recommend them.  If someone wants to read a paraphrase of the New Testament there is none more refreshing than the Phillips New Testament in Modern English  (1958).   .