Saturday, April 28, 2012

Should Foxes Draw Up Plans for the Hen Houses?
The Dishonest Spin of the WELS Committee on the New NIV

Naughty NIV 2011:
Adam and Eve were not real people, and....

KJV Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.


Pastor Nathan Bickel:



The prolonged WELS consideration of NIV 11 and the TEC’S Role - Should a fox population draw up architectural plans for the community’s hen houses?

I cannot help but think, that WELS is taking its time with the translation issue, and in the process desensitizing its membership  to the New NIV 11. Why else, then, would the synodical four-part Bible "translation study," which includes the New NIV 11, be in the consideration mix of two other translations, in the same Bible study? The two other Bible translations are, the ESV and the Holman Christian Study Bible, - both, of which are considered to be non gender neutral, unlike the (politically correct) NIV 11 gender neutral Bible – the (supposed) “improvement” from the notorious 2005 TNIV.

Added to this slanted (TEC) Bible study has been the TEC'S (Translation Evaluation Committee's) own recommendation that the new gender neutral NIV 11 would be suitable for WELS synodical use. To such I ask myself:  

“And, what logical conclusion can be drawn, but that the New NIV 11 will be WELS next officially (approved) translation for synodical use? I think that part of the reason for the long drawn out affair, is to wear down the opposition and curry more of the membership’s approval favor to recognize the New NIV 11 as just another alternative, to the non gender neutral translations of the ESV and the HCSB. Also, by taking all this time, those in favor of the NIV 11, will have more time to gather their forces together for the synodical convention, when another important decision will be made concerning this whole translation issue.”

Those within WELS, pushing the new NIV 11, don't care (or, haven't seriously) thought of all the people that they will be offending. Instead, it is too easy and convenient to mark those who disagree with their new NIV 11 bent, as sinning against the 8th Commandment for expressing spirited disagreement, with the whole translation consideration issue.




Following is an email I sent to a high profile WELS pastor involved with the ongoing translation issue process. I voiced my concerns and have never (to my knowledge) received a response email. His silence is deafening and leads me to believe that concerns like mine are considered inconsequential and frivolous. In fact, this following letter is the 2nd email communication regarding the same issue, of which he has failed to respond, or even acknowledge:

Dear Pastor --------,

It greatly distresses my wife and me that WELS would even consider the NIV11 as an option for official WELS publications, as it looks to a different Bible translation to replace the 1984 NIV.

I keep reading that WELS and our local congregation is committed to Christian belief and practice, based upon the inerrant Word of God. However, the very consideration of the gender neutral NIV11, renders that professed resolve, inconsistent.

Adopting a gender neutral Bible is tantamount to messing with God's Word. I prefer to liken it to "molestation" of God's written revelation. Adopting gender neutrality in Scripture is humanly micro managing and tweaking Scripture to suit one's own (carnal political correctness, Bible study slothfulness, or, whatever) desires and / or, ends. There is no Scriptural or rational excuse to intentionally remove and / or alter Scripture's patriarchal language. Doing so, would be akin to literary revisionism, - as altering other literary works of antiquity, such as Homer's Iliad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus’ writings, etc. Even in the secular world, I’m convinced that many would consider this type of editing alteration, unconscionable.

Scripture, itself makes it clear that "every word of God is pure." Scripture, (itself) also states that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" [God-breathed - the very words]  -  [Proverbs 30:5-6 ;  2 Timothy 3:14-17]

If WELS leadership and congregational pastors would be (Biblically) wise, they would drop the NIV11 consideration from the mix of options. Presently, I'm reminded of the Scriptural reality: ".....Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you....." [2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - in context]

Pastor, -------- I urge you to do your part in calling for a halt to the WELS consideration of a gender neutral Bible, and, also to help lead and encourage WELS pastors and congregations to do the same. Also, I believe that there is no need to bottleneck the process of selecting a different translation by including a gender neutral one, in the mix.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this short email, - "I keep reading that WELS and our local congregation is committed to Christian belief and practice, based upon the inerrant Word of God. However, the very consideration of the gender neutral NIV11 renders that professed resolve, inconsistent." Not only would I describe this present action of WELS "inconsistent," but also irresponsible.

Finally, I never thought I'd witness the day that a Conservative Lutheran Christian denominational church body would ever entertain adopting a gender neutral translation, which, essentially, departs from the Reformation sola scriptura principle. I can't believe that our Triune God ever intended that His Word (and very words) be conveyed in any other way than what His Holy Spirit breathed to His inspired human authors.

Sincerely,

Nathan M. Bickel

---------------------------------

I believe that this prolonged drawn out affair will end up with WELS accepting the politically correct New NIV 11 for its synodical and congregational usage. And, I believe that it is being partially spun by the TEC, this way, quoting from the aforementioned WELS translation Bible study – Lesson 4:

"We expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the Bible most of the time is by hearing it read - in the context of the public worship service. Consideration must therefore be given to a translation's suitability for being read aloud........."  - TEC'S own words

In Lesson 3 is this:

“As language changes, why is it difficult for one generation to “give up” the way they are used to speaking for the sake of another generation?  Why will it be necessary for someone to make a sacrifice?  Who will make that sacrifice?”

There you have it - a clear indication of this [supposed]  "objective" committee pushing for the new NIV 11. Breaking these two quotes down, what the TEC is actually saying (in their own little code), is:

“……….We think that most of the WELS membership, experience the Scriptures, basically in the Sunday worship service. Even though the Scriptures are printed out, they don’t read those Scriptures, in the worship service, nor, at home -  but hear them read Sunday morning.  We like the new NIV 11 because it sounds better than all the other translations. We need a ‘dumbed down’ translation for those unlearned laymen to hear. We need to appeal to the lowest common denominator......

...........Furthermore, its time for the present older 2 generations to give up their familiar Scripture translation preference for the sake of the up and coming, younger  2 generations. That ‘sacrifice’ is the honorable thing to do. And, it doesn’t matter if the translation is a gender neutral one. After all, we must keep up with the politically correct culture.”

The above (aforementioned) reasoning makes me think of the past, when we were youngsters, and when we would love to hear the adults (in family gatherings) talk. We would gravitate to that adult talk and not expect them to talk baby talk. We never thought that we were being discriminated against and loved to listen to this “adult” talk. Nor, did our parents and aunts and uncles ever feel that they needed to give up their adult conversation so that their children could understand.

Finally, I think it offensive that part of the TEC ‘S criteria would be to “dumb down” the Scriptures to appeal to a lower standard of people communication. This is, at least, my clear impression of their slanted 4 part Bible study!

Nathan M. Bickel - emeritus pastor



"Let's play an innocent game of ping-pong."


P.S.

It is my understanding that WELS now has a 100 person group of pastors, - (many of whom are young pastors) who are studying the TEC'S work with the translation issue. I would not doubt that their concerted work will be compiled and categorized so as to add to the Translation Evaluation Committee's presentation at the summer WELS convention.

I am under the impression that the young pastors won't be so apt to be critical of the TEC'S work, since one or more of the TEC'S members may have had some of these young pastors as seminary students. Hence, I ask myself the question:

“What type of honest, straight-forward and objective analysis will be given by this group of 100 pastors, since they may be (still) emotionally dedicated to their former professor (s) and loyal to the instruction given them by this same professor or professors?”

Furthermore, this whole process and the time that it is taking to come to some sort of synodical resolution, seems to me to smack, "suspicious." And, I would say, it appears, it is somewhat contrived and planned to reach a desired end, - namely to welcome the new NIV 11 with the fellowship of open arms, hugs and "holy" kisses.

Finally, it should be noted that most, if not all those on the TEC and the 100 pastor, man, woman, male and / or female - and, even possible transgender committee members [excuse me as I feel the political correctness need to cover all the gender bases so as not to offend anyone] have been schooled using the NIV 84 version. To them, it would seem, switching to an "up-graded" version is no "biggy" - even if the new NIV 11 gender neutral translation offends the WELS grandpa's and grandma's in their midst. After all, these old traditionalist octogenarians will soon all croak and then the Church can have a “decent updated, culturally accepted Biblical translation.” So goes the [flawed] thinking of some, I believe, - even if I express it in exaggerated terms........