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.

[The following excerpt is from Wayne Grudem's book Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? (Crossway, 2006: 149-150). See chapters 3-17 for the specific examples that prompted this list.]

[The beginning chapters of Evangelical Feminism] detail fifteen ways in which evangelical feminists, either directly or by implication, undermine and deny the authority of Scripture.

Various evangelical feminists

1) deny the authority or truthfulness of Genesis 1-3;
2) say that Paul was wrong;
3) say that some verses that appear in every ancient manuscript are not part of the Bible;
4) say that our ultimate authority is found not in what is written in Scripture but in developments that came after the Bible;
5) follow a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" that casts all the ethical commands of the New Testament into doubt;
6) claim that everyone's position just depends on what Bible passages people choose to prioritize;
7) silence the most relevant Bible passages on men and women by saying they are "disputed";
8) say that women can teach under the authority of pastors or elders;
9) evade New Testament commands by saying, "We are not a church";
10) put church tradition above the Bible;
11) put experience above the Bible;
12) put a subjective sense of "calling" above the Bible;
13) put contemporary prophecies above the Bible;
14) put unique circumstances above the Bible;
15) nullify the Bible's statements by saying they are a joke.

And what will happen to churches and organizations who allow these approaches to stand as acceptable options? As evangelicals accept the validity of these claims one after the other, and as evangelical pastors preach sermons adopting the methods found in these claims, evangelicals are quietly and unsuspectingly being trained to reject this verse of Scripture and that command of Scripture, and this passage, and that teaching, here and there throughout the Bible. As this procedure goes on, we will begin to have whole churches who no longer "tremble" at the Word of God (Isa. 66:2), and who no longer live by "every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4), but who pick and choose the things they like and the things they don't like in the Bible, using the very same methods they have been taught by these egalitarian writers. The church will thus be led step by step, often without knowing what is happening, to a new liberalism for the twenty-first century.

And in this way the authority of God's Word, and the ultimate authority of God himself over our lives, will be diminished and increasingly rejected.

A strange case of gender confusion is brewing in South Africa surrounding the recent accomplishments of 18-year-old runner Caster Semenya. Earlier this month, the teenage girl easily won the 800-meter gold medal in the world track and field championships at Berlin. Semenya won by 2.45 seconds, completing the run in a world-best 1 minute 55.45 seconds. In winning, Semenya defeated defending champion Janeth Jepkosgei, who finished second, and another star, Jennifer Meadows of Britain. While her victory was somewhat stunning, it was not necessarily headline news.

Her victory became a global news story when word leaked that the sport's governing body, the IAAF, is conducting gender tests on Semenya to prove whether or not she meets the requirements to compete as a woman. Concerns apparently arose after Semenya exploded onto the world track scene by turning in such unheard-of finish times, times that represented a dramatic improvement over her previous performances. Her muscular build and deep voice also fueled speculation about her gender and led to the investigation. Besides the obvious physical examinations, how do "gender experts," as they are being called, determine the biological, and thus God given, gender of an athlete? Evaluation will include reports from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist, and a "gender expert."

South Africans have exploded in fury over the tests and thousands in her homeland have rallied to Semenya's side. Several thousand greeted her at the airport, singing and dancing upon her return from Berlin. Most of them seem convinced as to her gender as well. One sign at the airport called her "our first lady of sport." It will take several weeks for the results of the investigation and testing to be finalized.

This case is both curious and unprecedented. Only in the gender-confused postmodern world would we need such rules as those adopted by the 2004 International Olympic Committee that govern the conditions under which a "transgendered" person may compete against one of the two genders without giving them an unfair advantage. There has been no speculation as to whether Semenya has undergone so-called "sex reassignment" surgery, but this case proves two things we argue here regularly. First, God has made every person either male or female, an identity that may not be denied by social engineering. And second, God has made men and women different from each another.

The case upholds the first truth because the IAAF has only two options with Semenya. Either she was born a female, remains a female and should retain her medals with apologies from the ruling body, or she is a man posing as a woman (whether through surgery or disguise) who remains a man in either case and should be stripped of the medals and disqualified permanently from the sport. With either option, Semenya was born either a man or a woman and remains so, even if a pernicious form of "reassignment" surgery is involved. 

This case also proves another biblical truth: God made men and women different. The very existence of the IAAF investigation is nothing less than a vindication of the light of nature, which is, as C.H. Spurgeon famously put it, God's "second book" of revelation. And of course, God's general revelation serves to validate many of the great truths of His special revelation. The recognition of those differences is evident in this case. God created men to be physically stronger and thus, it would be unfair (and unwise) to have them compete against women in sports. Because of their physical strength, men would have an unfair advantage. Social engineers want to flatten gender distinctions and often seek to do so by arguing in favor of some sort of physical uniformity of humankind. But as this case proves, God's truth abideth still, and in His common grace, is validated by the light of nature. The outcome of this case will be interesting, even newsworthy for many, but it will not change that which is unchangeable - God created them male and female.