Ministry News

The NIV Debate

Details

Tuesday, 25 October 2011 15:49

A recent salvo against the 2011 edition of the New International Version (NIV) is not likely to resolve the 20-year divide over gender-neutral language in modern Bible translations. Yet the latest round of debate is spilling into the pew, making it a concern for every pastor.

Released originally in 1978 and updated in 1984, the NIV is today’s best-selling Bible in charismatic and evangelical circles. It isn’t the only version that upsets critics of modern adaptations, but it attracts far more attention than such versions as the New Living, New Revised Standard or New Century Bibles.

Gender references in the Today’s NIV that debuted in New Testament form in 2002 and the complete Bible in 2005 prompted intense criticism over the inclusion of gender-neutral language. In 2009, rights holder Biblica announced an update that would supplant the TNIV. This occurred with the release in March of the new NIV, published by Zondervan.

Yet, after an extensive review by a team of students and scholars, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) concluded in late May that the 2011 NIV retains 75 percent of the TNIV’s objectionable content. The critique by the council, which at one time was headed by charismatic Bible professor Wayne Grudem, spanned more than 3,000 verses.

Because of the council's links to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), its report sparked action in mid-June at the SBC’s annual meeting. Delegates overwhelmingly passed a resolution expressing “profound disappointment” and asking SBC-owned LifeWay Christian Stores not to sell the 2011 NIV. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said he regretted that the resolution addressed the chain so directly, according to Baptist Press.

Zondervan responded in a statement, saying it was "disappointed that delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing the updated NIV against the wishes of the SBC resolution committee, who affirmed the transparency of the NIV translation process."

LifeWay stores, however, "continue to sell the 2011 NIV, while working through the process of review with our board of trustees," LifeWay Christian Resources Director of Communications Micah Carter told Christian Retailing magazine.

Although the 165-store retail chain hasn’t removed it from the shelves yet, that could change after trustees complete their review of the resolution. LifeWay refused to carry the TNIV, although it stocked the 1984 version.

Among the offending verses the CBMW identified is Luke 17:3, which the 1984 NIV rendered, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” The new version has substituted “brother or sister” and “them” for the singular pronouns.

“Those are words that Jesus said,” CBMW President Randy Stinson asserts. “He could have said, like He did in James 2:15, ‘brother or sister.’ If every word is inspired, we need to translate every word that is said.”

This isn't an isolated occurrence; Stinson says. The council found more than 60 similar examples.

In addition, the group objects to the new phrasing of 1 Timothy 2:12, where Paul’s words that he doesn’t permit a woman to teach or “have authority” over a man have changed to “assume authority.” It argues that the wording sides with feminist forces in the debate over whether women can serve as senior pastors. The CBMW says women who take that role can use the 2011 NIV to claim they didn’t assume that authority but received it from other pastors and elders.

Stinson says such proclivities illustrate the problem with "dynamic-equivalent" translations, which rely on a thought-for-thought rather than a more formal, word-for-word translating process.

“In one sense they are following standard translation guidelines,” says Stinson, dean of the church ministries school at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. “But that’s for folks who follow the guidelines for dynamic equivalent translations. What you see is … how many changes can be made because of new philosophies.”

Retaining Original Language
Because of his stance in favor of women in ministry, Oral Roberts University professor of the New Testament Robert Mansfield represents an unlikely ally of the CBMW, which embraces the SBC’s stance that only males can serve as senior pastors.

However, Mansfield, who has been an ORU faculty member for 34 years and is an associate pastor at a United Methodist church in Tulsa, plans to continue using his 1984 NIV in the pulpit.

“I am a Greek scholar and linguist and as such have a decided preference for retaining the original vocabulary, as far as it can be captured in English,” he says. “I prefer that translations retain the original meaning of Hebrew and Greek and follow the structure and syntax in a fairly clear way. I believe there is a special authority in the original … and try to honor that.”

What he sees as the mixing of translation with interpretation is what bothers Mansfield about the 2011 version. Interpretation is a separate discipline that can be accomplished through footnotes and commentaries, he says. Mansfield calls this intermingling trend a concern to many scholars because of its impact on translational accuracy.

Although he supports women in ministry, Mansfield says the growing emphasis on this idea has placed additional pressure on Bible translators to employ gender-neutral language.  He believes the result is introducing elements and words that are not in the Bible’s original language, something he thinks can undermine scriptural authority.

“There’s a tension there that is probably unavoidable … in rendering successfully the biblical text,” he says. “Being a Greek scholar, I’m a bit of a purist.”

While Regent University professor J. Lyle Story agrees that political pressure gives rise to the TNIV’s gender-neutral language, he thinks the 2011 version corrects some of those excesses. As examples, he cites:

• The opening of Psalm 8:4 has changed from “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them?” to “What is mankind?”

• Psalm 34:20, which in the TNIV read, “He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken,” has reverted to 1984’s “He protects all his bones.”

• Proverbs 13:1 now says, “A wise son heeds his father’s instruction,” scrapping the TNIV’s use of a wise child heeding a parent’s instruction.

“I think they had gone too far in accepting the politics of translation,” says Story,

noting the reinsertion of “father” in the latter pair of verses. “There’s something about a father and a father’s relationship to his son that doesn’t adjust quickly to being a parent.”

The professor says linguistic deviations can also obscure some of the distinctions of the Old and New Testament. One example is Jesus calling Himself the “Son of Man” in His trial before the Sanhedrin, terminology that hearkens to Psalm 8. Turning such terms into generic forms can miss key nuances, Story says.

Despite that perspective, the professor of New Testament and biblical languages at Regent’s divinity school is an advocate of women in ministry. He thinks the CBMW reflects Southern Baptists’ more exclusive approach to life and ministry that bends any translation questions in favor of males.

“It is possible to be evangelical without being fundamentalist,” Story says. “Sometimes the critics make too much out of things. They often criticize something to stereotype, label and demonize people who are trying to do something creative.”

Barbara Yoder, senior pastor of Shekinah Church in Ann Arbor, Mich., has misgivings for the motives of those who say that translational purity is uppermost on their minds. Yet she also mistrusts the other extreme and those who want to neuter the Bible so it will be so inclusive it is acceptable to any audience.

Admitting she is not a scriptural scholar and doesn’t get too concerned with the translation debate, Yoder says numerous pastors—some of them friends—cite the Bible in advising that she shouldn’t hold the office she does. One would be hard pressed to persuade Yoder they are correct.

“I’m very simplistic and I’m very sure that I received a call from God,” she says. “With people who say Paul’s position would prevent women from being in ministry, I don’t get into that argument because I have a mandate."

Barbara Wentroble, president of International Breakthrough Ministries in Dallas, says that too often disputes over male and female authority ignore the fact that God is a Spirit who encompasses characteristics of both genders.          

“I believe God is a 'He' but I believe He has the heart of a man and a woman,” says the minister. “When Jesus talked about how He would gather His people as a mother gathers her chicks [Matt. 23:37]; that’s the heart of a mother.”

While Wentroble agrees with those who refer to God in the masculine sense, over the years she has observed many “legalists” who she says employ Scripture as a weapon to silence females.

“I travel to a lot of nations (and) I’ve noticed that any time I find a nation that is not Christian one of the first things that (stand out) is the oppression of women," she says. "I think that’s why Jesus is a woman’s best friend because He came and crossed cultural barriers.”

Tempted to Jump to Conclusions
Douglas Moo, the Wheaton College professor who chairs the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT)—the group of scholars responsible for the NIV—cautions against jumping to conclusions based on critics’ statements.

In an interview with the Baptist Press news service, Moo said the committee relied on a database of 4.4 billion words that show how people today communicate. Its decisions weren’t based on trying to avoid offending anyone, he said.

“Our gender decisions were made on the basis of very careful and significant research,” Moo said. “The motivation … is to communicate clearly to people what we think arguably is contemporary English.”

In responding to the SBC’s anti-NIV resolution, the CBT objected to claims it had altered the meaning of hundreds of verses by erasing gender-specific language and that it had gone beyond acceptable translation standards. The committee insists it followed the same standards used by professional translators around the world. Combining those standards with the best biblical and linguistic scholarship helped them render God’s Word accurately: “This mandate is what guides all our decisions—not any other agenda.” The translation notes for the 2011 NIV refer to examples from the edition of improved English usage.

The question for pastors is how to sort out the opposing arguments posed by scholars on both sides. One caution Story offers is to avoid getting caught up in controversy to the detriment of ministry.

“Pastors can generate more heat than light,” the Regent professor says of quibbling over the “best” translation. “I think a pastor has the responsibility to hold forth the positive message of Scripture. You can end up with a negative polemic instead of [spotlighting] it in terms of its content and message for our day.”

Nor is the pulpit the place to air such discussions, Mansfield says. He advises they are better addressed in small-group studies, newsletters and electronic forums where ministers have more time and space to explore opposing views.

“People attach different loyalties to translations of the Word,” the ORU professor says of the importance to pastors. “They become attached to particular versions, grew up with it and memorize certain portions of it. When another version comes out that seems particularly different, it’s upsetting to them. The Bible’s foundation has been challenged.”

However, Mansfield says the passages in question are not major problems, since none of the changes pertain to references to God—a fact that he says places the controversy on a lower level, theologically. Still, he sees this as a small step in deviating from the original text, something that can create doubts in the minds of laity about Scripture’s validity and sacredness.

“If it can mean so many different things it can raise further uncertainties: ‘How much authority do these scriptures have?’” Mansfield says. “That should be of concern to every pastor and professing Christian.”

Stinson echoes that thought, saying scriptural authority is at stake, as well as how it will be preserved for future generations. “We should care about every single word,” he says. “We’re not saying there is any perfect translation and we’re not saying that translation isn’t difficult. But pastors should care about the accuracy of the Word of God. It is at the heart and soul of the Christian faith.” —Ken Walker

Ken Walker is a freelance writer from Huntington, W.Va. He is co-author of Winning the Food Fight with pastor Steve Willis, who was featured last year on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution on ABC. The book is scheduled to release in January from Regal.