Odds & Ends

CBMW leader "very encouraged" by NIV announcement

Randy Stinson, president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood said on September 1, 2009, 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 itself 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 it revisits its 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."

- Jeff Robinson

Ligon Duncan Responds to NIV Annoucement

On 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 genderrelated 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. We believe that a flawed translation philosophy resulted in the TNIV presenting English readers with an unjustified rendering of the gender language of the Hebrew and Greek texts 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.

- J. Ligon Duncan III

Albert Mohler Responds to NIV Announcement

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.

- R. Albert Mohler Jr.

The TNIV Is Dead ... Sort of.

As everyone now knows, the TNIV will go off the market in 2011, and now it is all but dead ... sort of. The 2011 revision of the NIV will be based on the TNIV, though we still do not know the extent to which gender-neutral translations will be included. According to Doug Moo, the verdict is still out on this question. Ted Olsen reports for

Christianity Today that,

Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that roiled critics of the TNIV.

"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table. This has been a time of transition in the in the way the English language has handled gender, and it is in flux and in process as things are changing quickly" ("Correcting the ‘Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011," Christianity Today blog, dated September 1, 2009, accessed on-line, http://blog.christianitytoday.com).

I'm holding out hope that the Committee on Bible Translation will not do in the NIV 2011 what they did in the TNIV. If they do, I would oppose it, and so would many others. The NIV would then become the new "divisive" translation, and I don't think that helps anyone.

That being said, I'm glad that the TNIV is going off the market. For the sake of the countless numbers who read the NIV, I hope that the inaccuracies produced by their "gender accurate" translation philosophy disappear too.

- Denny Burk

Church of Scotland Approves Openly Homosexual Pastor

In May the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approved the appointment of an openly homosexual man as pastor of Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen. Scott Rennie, the pastor in question, was previously married but is now divorced and living with his male partner. A group of pastors had opposed the appointment but lost the vote. There was intense debate and the possibility of a significant schism has been discussed (reminiscent of the Great Disruption of 1843). Some pastors said they were considering a move to the Free Church of Scotland if they can navigate the Free Church's position on exclusive psalm singing.

This is a major development in the gender debate with wide impact on believers in Scotland and elsewhere. It is interesting to read the rationale given by those supporting the ordination of open homosexuals. According the The Scotsman, Reverend Lindsay Biddle of Affirmation Scotland, a group which supports gay and lesbian clergy, stated, "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it." Archbishop Desmond Tutu weighed in to support the appointment stating,

I find it a little difficult to understand when, from all that we know about our Lord, he would have been on the side of the oppressed and on the side of those in the minority, but then we say in this one case Jesus goes against all the paradigms that we know about him and sides with those who persecute an already persecuted minority.

The approach to the scriptures shown here is telling. All references to homosexuality in the Bible are ignored or excluded (presumably arguing those references only refer to homosexual prostitution), and in the place of explicit statements of Scripture we are given Jesus' practice of siding with the oppressed. Jesus sided with the Scriptures. He reached out to the Samaritans, for example, but did not endorse their teaching (cf. John 4:21-22). Care and compassion in the ministry of Jesus involve bringing people out of errors and into the truth. Jesus did not affirm the woman at the well's immoral lifestyle but called her to repentance.

Interestingly, some have commented that having conceded the issue of women's ordination, there was little ground for holding to a strict reading of the Scriptures in the debate about homosexuality. With the issue now settled in favor of normalizing homosexual behavior, those commenters appear to be correct.

- Ray Van Nest