In Monday's post, I expressed a sincere appreciation for the concerns which President Obama's fatherhood initiative (which differs from the National Fatherhood Initiative, but has informal ties to it - info on the president's initiative may be found at www.fatherhood.gov) seeks to address. Any time a nation is encouraging fathers to care more deeply and substantively for their children, it is a good thing. Dads should be playing catch with their sons, reading bedtime stories to their daughters, and showing all of their children open and clear affection. Those are all noble goals and worthy admonitions. But they are not enough.

For evangelical Christians, law - exposing our sinfulness and weakness - must drive us to the Gospel, else our good news really isn't good news at all. Without the Gospel, our message is merely a platitudinous "give it all you've got," with no accompanying power to accomplish the task, whether it is salvation, obedience to the laws of the land, or fatherhood. President Obama well said that government cannot make good fathers. There is far more substance in those words than perhaps the president realizes.

Authentic fatherhood is not bound up merely in clever aphorisms and slogans with sound bite value. It is, rather, bound up in the holy kingship of God the Father as filtered through the others-centered love of Christ, the suffering Son. It is bound up in Paul's call in Eph. 6:4: "Fathers, bring your children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." The church, which wields the powerful Sword of the Spirit, and not the state, which merely possesses the sword of steel, must drive Scripture's fatherhood initiative. The very existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative evidences the church's abject failure at this crucial juncture. The church must not unwittingly outsource this vital calling to the rulers and authorities of this age.

The church must equip and encourage fathers to be hard about the task of devoting the majority of their non-work time to fulfilling the command of Eph. 6:4, to the study of God's Word so dads can arm themselves with the proper tools to teach their families of the great war that began in Gen. 3 and of the Great Warrior who came to rescue His people from that destruction. Teaching our children the great storyline of Scripture - creation, fall, redemption, new creation - alone will equip them to understand the world in which they live. This alone will teach them how they must live as citizens of another kingdom while sojourning through a kingdom whose citizens (and often their own hearts) are at war with their true King.

President Obama said being a good father is "not hard at all." I respectfully disagree. Being a father in the biblical sense is impossible unless God in His mercy equips one for the task. It is a glorious task, but one that requires time and tireless, intentional work, hour upon hour, day upon day, week upon week, month upon month, decade upon decade. A father is a father until death. In God's gracious economy, self-sacrifice, a Christ-like laying down of the life is Fatherhood 101. What, more specifically, does this look like in the press of day-to-day life? I will take up that subject in my final post in this three-part series tomorrow.

Today (September 1, 2009), Zondervan (the publisher of the NIV), the Committee on Bible Translation [CBT] (which oversees the NIV and TNIV translations) and Biblica (which owns the copyrights to the NIV and TNIV) announced the discontinuation of the TNIV translation. The TNIV received significant criticism from the larger evangelical community both because of the way in which it was introduced to the Christian public (there was a widespread perception of lack of integrity in the process), and because of numerous controversial aspects to the translation itself (including but not limited to the way it handles gender language and the veiling of some important Messianic references).

I want to thank publically Maureen (Moe) Girkins, President of Zondervan, for her transparent integrity in this process. I have the utmost respect for her. I also want to thank Professor Doug Moo, of the CBT, who has long been a hero of mine (along with his colleague and mine, Bruce Waltke). Though I disagree with Professor Moo's public assessment of the relative correctness of the choices the TNIV made in relation to gender language, I honor him as a father in the faith and brother in the Lord, from whom I have learned more than I can adequately express, and for whom I have the highest esteem.

I also believe Ms. Girkins and Professor Moo implicitly when they say that the CBT is embarking upon: "a complete review of every gender-related change we have made in the TNIV" and that they are "actively seeking scholarly input" from anyone who would like to send it to them. I will personally avail myself of that opportunity with Professor Moo (and I have been expressly invited and encouraged to do so by Ms. Girkins).

When the TNIV first surfaced, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood emphatically criticized the CBT's translation choices in numerous places, especially relating to gender-neutral language [see here]. We believe that a flawed translation philosophy resulted in the TNIV presenting English readers with an unjustified rendering of the gender language of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. It is our sincere hope that this new revision of the NIV will do better. We await the new product of the CBT with expectancy. And when we have the opportunity, we will review it for the larger Christian public with rigor and charity.

I especially appreciate that Zondervan and Biblica have both privately and publically acknowledged that they made serious mistakes of process, and that the CBT has committed itself to re-examine the gender-related changes that appeared in the TNIV. This is a welcome and humble approach.

May I also say (though this may come unlooked for and from an unexpected source), as the Chairman of CBMW, the quick reaction of some egalitarians in the blogosphere to Zondervan's announcement, accusing Zondervan and the CBT of "caving in" to "fundamentalists," is uncharitable, inaccurate and unfair. There is every indication that the CBT aims to be true to its own translation philosophy, whatever the feedback of egalitarians or complementarians may be.

The announcement of a new project involving the New International Version of the Bible [NIV] is certain to attract a good deal of interest, both in the media and throughout the evangelical world. This level of attention is inevitable, for few issues can approach the importance of translating the Bible faithfully and accurately.

The announcement of a new NIV update will attract special attention because of the controversy that surrounded the publication and release of what became known as the TNIV, or Today's New International Version, announced in 2002. As is now well-known, the release of the TNIV led to a firestorm of controversy among evangelicals. Even as supporters of the TNIV declared the translation to be superior to previous contemporary English translations in terms of "gender accuracy," others saw the new translation as hopelessly accommodated to contemporary concerns about gender.

The controversy over the TNIV was heated and uncomfortable, but inevitable. Those of us who saw the translation as deficient and misguided in its claim to and application of "gender accuracy" responded to the new translation with alarm and deep concern. The issues of primary concern with the release of the TNIV remain. These issues include, but are not limited to, matters of gender reference.

As many of us made clear at the time of the TNIV's announcement and release, the issues with this translation had to do with translation decisions that we were convinced did not produce "gender accuracy," but lamentable inaccuracy. The rigorous application of these decisions produced a translation that was not only problematic in terms of direct and indirect gender references, but also in its confusion of crucial texts with messianic significance.

The announcement by Biblica (formerly known as the International Bible Society), the Committee on Bible Translation, and Zondervan comes as the world of English Bible translations has been transformed, even in the brief years since 2002. The joint release indicates that this new translation will be known as the NIV, even though it will be based on the TNIV as it has been edited even since publication. This is a significant departure from the earlier promise to "freeze" the NIV translation in order to protect it from controversy. This decision had been a defensive move taken by the publisher and its partners as controversy threatened to cause significant harm to the reputation of the NIV. As far back as 1997 an effort to revise the NIV was met with intense concern related to the use of "inclusive language."

The issues of concern related to the TNIV remain. For the sake of the Gospel, we must hope and pray that we do not confront these same issues in the updated NIV. At the same time, we must avoid reckless talk. Even where we must disagree, we must recognize that everyone involved in this discussion will face the judgment of God for how this disagreement is conducted.

Today's decision indicates that the NIV will be now be "unfrozen." But now the NIV partners have acted openly and honestly to announce their intention. One of the most lamentable aspects of the earlier controversy over the TNIV had to do with what were clearly understood to be broken promises related to the NIV.

The "unfreezing" of the NIV is inevitable. Evangelicals must be committed to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular language of contemporary people. No translation, no matter how worthy, can remain static and unchanged without the consequence of becoming dated and increasingly out of touch with the development of language. The "unfreezing" of the NIV has now been announced in a way that is respectful and honest.

Maureen (Moe) Gerkins, president of Zondervan, along with representatives of Biblica and the Committee on Bible Translation, have approached this new project and update with the stated determination to revisit controversial translation issues related to the TNIV and to consider all the concerns raised in that process. She has demonstrated integrity in discussing these issues openly and honestly. She, along with Zondervan's partners, has promised an openness to these concerns. They have not promised to change their translation philosophy. Their straightforwardness on this is commendable, even where we may find ourselves in disagreement over these decisions and the underlying translation philosophy.

The controversy over the TNIV divided the evangelical community. Regrettably, in many cases the controversy produced more heat than light. Nevertheless, this was not always the case. This controversy brought strategic attention to crucial questions related, not only to the NIV family of translations, but to the entire project of translating the Bible into the English language. Furthermore, the controversy was directed to very real disagreements about the meaning of gender and language. These are issues of great theological, biblical, pastoral, and moral importance.

Behind the most recent controversies there remains the larger question of translation philosophy, often conceptualized in the distinction between more formal translations and translations that are more dynamic. Even as I recognize a spectrum between formal and dynamic approaches, my strong preference, based in theological and biblical considerations, is for a translation that is committed to formal equivalence as the primary goal.

In the end, the update of the NIV to be released in 2011 will have to stand on its own. Those of us who have had significant concerns with the TNIV should communicate these concerns respectfully, candidly, and directly to the Committee on Bible Translation, to Zondervan, and to Biblica. When released, the updated NIV will deserve and require the attentive study and review of all committed evangelicals. We must hope and pray that this updated NIV will be found both faithful and useful. For now, the decisions that will determine the faithfulness and usefulness of this updated edition are in the hands of the Committee on Bible Translation. We must all pray that their work will produce an updated translation we can greet with appreciation and trust. We must take the members of the Committee on Bible Translation at their word that they will consider these concerns. To fail to pray and to act in this way will be to fail at a basic Christian commitment. The issue is not only the integrity of a Bible translation, but our integrity as Christians.

And so we hope.  And so we pray.  And so we wait.

Randy Stinson, president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood said Tuesday afternoon that he is both grateful and hopeful after Zondervan announced earlier in the day that it will revise its New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible to correct the "mistake" it made in publishing the gender-neutral version of the NIV.

 Evangelical scholars associated with CBMW were concerned with more than 3,000 changes that appeared in the TNIV when it was published in 2002, changes that flattened gender language, eliminating many references such as "son," "he," "him," "his," "father," and "brother," references that diverged from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Translators from Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society), admitted in a press conference announcing the new NIV that many concerns regarding the faithfulness of gender-neutral translations to the original languages were legitimate and that such translations had divided the evangelical community. In his comments, Biblica CEO Keith Danby referenced the gender-neutral NIVi, which was published in 1997 in the United Kingdom.

"It is very humble of Zondervan and Biblica to admit mistakes and acknowledge the controversy that they brought to the evangelical community over the past several years," Stinson said.

"We are grateful for the godly approach to try to reconcile this. We are hopeful for the new product. I don't have any reason to believe that they are not sincere about their willingness to revisit the more than 3,000 gender changes to which we were opposed."

 Stinson said he has been in conversation with scholar Doug Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation (the committee that is responsible for the new translation) and believes that the evangelical concerns over the accuracy of so-called "gender neutral" language will be taken seriously.

 When Zondervan first announced a revision of the NIV in 1997, a group of evangelical leaders and scholars including CBMW, Focus on the Family, God's World Publications (publisher of WORLD) and others, met in Colorado Springs and developed a set of guidelines for biblical interpretation as it relates to gender language.

The guidelines were to serve as a baseline for translation of the gender language in the TNIV, but translators did not abide by them. Stinson said he is encouraged that the translation committee for the newest NIV may at least loosely follow the Colorado Springs Guidelines.

"It is my understanding that the Committee on Bible Translation does not see themselves as obligated to the Colorado Springs Guidelines, but still may end up translating some of those passages or maybe many of those passages in a way that is commensurate with those guidelines when they revisit their decisions from the past," Stinson said.

"We will reserve judgment and we are going to be watching this closely with hope and giving the benefit of the doubt to the people revising the NIV. We will evaluate the product based on things like the Colorado Springs Guidelines and other parameters we think are important in the debate."

"It sounds like they are very genuine about involving other scholars who would have been in opposition to the changes to gender language in the TNIV and who desire to engage in genuine dialogue."

Like many conservative evangelicals, I am always wary when government - whether it is conservative or liberal in its ideology - puts forth a program that is focused on curing those societal ills that have adverse effects on millions. Many of us recall Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign in the 1980s that took aim at illegal drug use. Despite its positive sloganeering, it was a program that had - as such programs are wont to do - limited effectiveness. The problem with "Just Say No" and others like it is that these programs bypass the main issue, the depravity of the human heart. They cut down the weeds but leave the roots in the ground to re-grow the pernicious plant. Only the Gospel can transform the human heart. Because the state is not the church, "Just Say No" dealt with drugs at the level of Law and not Gospel. The failure does not surprise us.

More recently, President Barack Obama articulated his National Fatherhood Initiative, a program that actually originated in 1994. The initiative is designed to challenge men to be "responsible, committed fathers." Obama, who grew up with an AWOL dad, said his own personal history has made him keenly aware of the devastation that is often wrought when fathers are nowhere to be found:  

In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence-both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference. That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

I couldn't agree more. Real men don't get a woman pregnant and then check out. They lovingly and sacrificially raise their children to the glory of God. They lead, provide for and protect their wives and children. The problem is, men in America increasingly abdicate this most solemn of callings, and the Fatherhood Initiative's website provides a scoreboard counting the deadly fallout of such abdication. "When dad doesn't get involved, his children are two to three times more likely to: engage in drugs, alcohol, violent crimes, and other harmful behaviors; drop out of school; live in poverty; face teenage pregnancy and struggle with depression and even commit suicide." These are devastating results, but these numbers capture only the socioeconomic fallout. Worse still are the spiritual/eternal casualties that result when dad goes MIA.

The National Fatherhood Initiative includes a number of programs designed to encourage "24/7 dads."  The website sells products for fathers, including the "Why Knot Marriage Readiness Program for Men," "DadVentures" (a book of games for dad to play with preschool children), and even a "24/7 Dad" kit for Christian organizations.

Among the things the president recommends for fathers is writing "have a good day" notes for their children each morning before leaving for work, starting rituals such as reading a story at bedtime and being affectionate.

Though I would argue that many of the other initiatives the president supports (examples: abortion on demand, so-called "same-sex marriage," and feminist-driven lobbies such as NOW) actually undermine and discourage substantive (biblical) fatherhood, I am encouraged that the president wants to see fathers taking their place as leaders of the family. It a good start, but it is only a start. It seems unavoidable that the aforementioned initiatives, by their very nature, will devour the fatherhood push, but I will leave critique for tomorrow's post. I'd also like to build on this theme and discuss a more robust, Gospel-driven fatherhood initiative that should be implemented, not by government, but by the local church.