Editor's Column

"The life and fellowship of Christians in history is to be a foretaste of life in the Kingdom of God and is to reflect in the world something of what the eschatological reality will be," so wrote George Eldon Ladd nearly 30 years ago.[1]  I have thought often, during the past nine months, about the truths reflected in this quote in light of the vigorous disagreement among evangelical Christians over the TNIV.  It seems clear that Ladd was partly right, but partly wrong.  You see, one (of many!) major difference between life this side of the eschaton and life then is that then - but not until then - we will have no more disagreements.  What glory this will be!  All of us, no matter what side we've taken in this life, will have our errors corrected.  There will be no "four views" books in heaven!  We will revel in the truth that has, finally and fully, set us free.  But, this side of glory, we will differ, and here - in relation to the TNIV - it is clear, we do differ.

So, how shall we manifest, in our differences, "a foretaste of life in the Kingdom of God"?  Two answers:  1) As we seek, before God, to advance the truth, we hearken to that day when the truth will have prevailed.  As lovers of the truth, and lovers of the Word of truth, we exhibit now what we shall all experience unfettered in the full flowering of the Kingdom.  Let it be clear:  those of us who have tried to make our case that the TNIV is not sufficiently accurate to commend to the church have done so with a deep love for the truth and for the Word of truth.  I have no doubt that many on the other side have also.  In our differences, may we always seek to advance the truth, admit when we are wrong, and seek, before God, to embrace the conviction that knowing the truth (as truth) always and only is the path to true liberation.  2) As we seek, before God, to disagree with respect and charity, we manifest now the characters that will be fully formed in Christlikeness in that coming day.  Differences on this issue are weighty - nothing less than the Bible itself, as read and studied by millions of English speaking Christians - and convictions are strong.  But, we have consciously and prayerfully endeavored to be fair, respectful, and charitable, while disagreeing strongly with those with whom we differ.  Emotions can flare, and frustrations can bring out our worst dispositions, but in God's grace, we must pray and work to evidence character that honors the gospel and manifests the kingdom, albeit "not yet" fully come.

In that spirit - pursuing truth with respect for and charity toward those with whom we differ - we offer this issue of JBMW.  Readers will find our focus is on the recent TNIV controversy, and we present here what we hope will be thoughtful and compelling reason to reconsider the wisdom of translating the Bible in the manner followed in the TNIV.  Peter Jones reflects helpfully on some of the larger worldview issues that form the context of gender-inclusive language usage.  His thesis is both important and sobering, and I trust readers will note carefully the wisdom of his perspective.  Vern Poythress moves us from the big picture now to focus on a particular element of gender-inclusive translation theory, namely, the practice of avoiding the generic "he."  Several difficulties arise in this avoidance, not the least is the unavoidable change of meaning conveyed.  Since we share a common commitment to convey, as best we can, the intended meaning of each text, these criticisms should be seriously considered.  Wayne Grudem then provides a thorough and careful response to recent defenses offered of the TNIV.  With grace toward his opponents, Grudem makes an enormously compelling case that both the practice and defense of gender-inclusive translation theory, as carried out in the TNIV, cannot rightly stand.  Along with these three articles, we include several documents pertinent to these past months' controversy as a kind of public witness to the many problems noted with the TNIV and the many supporters of the cause to encourage the church to proceed differently in our translations of Scripture.

Also in this issue, Peter Schemm engages Kevin Giles' recent The Trinity and Subordinationism, exposing difficulties with the thesis of an egalitarian trinity, while showing again some of the support for the historic view of the Son's eternal Sonship and submission to the Father.  John Piper preached a sermon some time back on the challenge of interpreting difficult texts of Scripture.  Might it be that one of the difficulties we face today is the very gendered language of Scripture itself, to which many in our culture take offense?  Piper's approach to "difficult texts," offered here, has relevance, it would seem, to the TNIV debate before us.  Finally, we gladly offer our 2001 annotated bibliography of gender-related books.  Many thanks, again, to Rob Lister and Todd Miles, for hours of hard labor to make this resource available.

May God be pleased to use this issue of JBMW for the furtherance of truth, in the spirit of charity, as we joyfully await the fullness of Christ's kingdom come.