narrow-minded has left a new comment on your post "Mark Schroeder on the Bible Translation":
"We have an opportunity to give a gift to the church.Just as Luther’s translation opened the Scriptures
to the masses, and just as the King James Version communicated the Word to English speakers for
centuries, so we have an opportunity not so much to solve an immediate problem, but to give a lasting gift to the church that will serve God’s people for a generation or more."
The KJV is unusable today for what reason?
***
GJ - WELS has taught loathing of the KJV for decades. The sect drove out several pastors who said the KJV was better than the NIV, even though WELS used to brag about using the KJV.
Once "dynamic translation" is accepted--a license for creative paraphrasing--anything goes.
---
California:
Your response to "Narrow Minded's" question, "Why not KJV" for WELS is well taken when you wrote that WELS has taught loathing of KJV for decades. It was in the 1970's when the NIV wasn't yet the "either or" translation. The early stages of the dialectic started the process to discredit the KJV in favor of any other translation of one's choice. Just so it wasn't KJV, for that had to go before a replacement could be arranged. As early as mid 1970's a WELS pastor was suspended when he defended the KJV and refused to go along with the obfuscation of a cafeteria of translations.
Pastor Richard Shekner served a congregation near Chicago, and the congregation followed him out of WELS as one of the first to do so over the issue of KJV and contemporary translations available at the time.
---
From Facebook:
Benjamin Tomczak · 13 followers
5 hours ago · - 6 people like this.
- Brian Westgate Why do I have a feeling Herman Otten's gonna spin this story to once again tell the world we should use the Beck Bible.
- Aaron Odya Lol. I liked pres' thoughts and responses to the objections raised to making a translation/revising one.5 hours ago via mobile · Like
- Noah Bater Intriguing that El Presidente completely disagrees with the TEC and TFC........good for him.5 hours ago · Like · 7
- Brian Westgate I know too many Anglicans . . . when I see "TEC" I think "The Episcopal Church!"5 hours ago · Like · 1
- Bryan Lidtke I like his thought about what message it would send if we adopted the NIV11. If others don't like it, it sure makes us look like we are the ones who aren't confessional and hold God's Word.5 hours ago · Like · 1
- Noah Bater I wouldn't mind looking into the possibility of purchasing and redoing Beck's edition. Although that would probably put CN out of print, cuz HO would have nothing else to write about....4 hours ago · Like · 2
- Joel Kluender I agree with President Schroeder and have been concerned about unity in our fellowship as well. May the Lord of the Church bless us with wisdom and unity at synod convention!4 hours ago · Like · 2
- Mark L. Bannan This put a big smile on my face. Thank you President Schroeder for thinking this through and expounding on it so eloquently. I will print this out and add it to the 300 or so pages of information I already have in my binder on the Bible Translation issue.3 hours ago · Like · 1
- Benjamin Tomczak Let's just remember Pres. Schroeder's emphasis on Pres. Wendland's emphasis on charity and understanding as we talk about translations and translation philosophy with our brothers in Christ, brothers in ministry, and brothers in confessional fellowship. To agree with, or disagree with the TEC or the TFC, doesn't automatically make one a heretic.3 hours ago · Like · 3
- Mark L. Bannan Benjamin, that is something we certainly should do. And I will endeavor to do so.
- Brian Westgate Noah, Herman will still be able to talk about how he should be put on the LCMS roster, and that we need a 21st century book of concord, and that LCMS should adopt the Beck Bible, and then he'll make it all look like it's all based on his not being on the roster, and then somebody will show up in a bad light for no reason, and then . . .
- Andy Mueller I thought it was an unfortunate decision to air his opinions. He could cause division by doing so, for example by giving the feel of pulling rank. At least one comment above shows that. I love President Schroeder. Just disagree that this was necessary or wise.2 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
- Bryan Lidtke I think it's great that he gave his opinion. I could care less if it causes divisions since there's already lots of it in our synod. I like a president who speaks his mind.44 minutes ago via mobile · Like · 2
- Joe Jewell At the top of p.3 President Schroeder makes, almost verbatim, the same point (re: other confessional and conservative church bodies' universally negative evaluations of NIV2011) that a TEC member literally shouted me down for making in front of a group of pastors, teachers, and laymen from my district last fall. I was declared to be "misleading" the group. I wonder if President Schroeder would have received the same treatment?
I am glad that he has spoken now, but I think he waited too long to do so. In an organization as deferential as the WELS, those of us who have seen things differently than the TEC have been way out on a limb for a long time now.23 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1 - Joe Jewell [With apologies for the cross-post for those reading this on Johnold J. Strey's wall as well.]
I agree with Pres. Schroeder that NIV2011 ought to be rejected, but I am not so sure that I think a new translation is the wisest course. While he is correct that no consensus has emerged around another translation, that is largely because there has been no available time or space for that debate and discussion to take place. From the beginning, the TEC interpreted their task as evaluating the NIV2011, which then morphed after the 2011 Synod Convention into building consensus around the NIV2011. Virtually all discussion in the WELS has been either pro- or anti-NIV2011, with the alternate translations (if they're mentioned at all) considered only through the lens of comparison with NIV2011.
If NIV2011 were taken off the table (and I certainly pray that the Convention does so), only then could a consensus even plausibly coalesce around an existing translation option (and options like the NKJV, Beck, and NASB that have been successfully used by our confessional brethren ought to be put back in the discussion, too). We may still reach the conclusion that pursuing our own translation is the correct way forward. But as of now, the focus on the NIV2011 hasn't left enough oxygen in the room to even have that discussion.7 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Noah Bater He's being a leader Andy. That's what a President should be. If every othermember of the synod has this right, shouldn't he? I highly doubt that anyone else in the synod has been asked for his particular thoughts as much as he has the last year. What would it look like ifhe just shrugged his shoulders? How would it look if you, as the pastor, did that to your congregation when they asked for your thoughts on a weighty issue in your parish? It was absolutely necessary AND wise. Regardless if you agree with them or not. He couldn't have said it any more evangelically. And his goal of avoiding division came through loud and clear.29 minutes ago · Like · 3
- Peter Snyder I know that President Schroeder withheld his opinion for quite some time in order NOT to sway thoughts on this, and I know that he thought carefully about it before finally weighing in. I believe it was for the sake of unity that he said what he did.
- Bryan Lidtke I think all this "unity in doctrine and practice" is not correct. We are not united in doctrine and practice. It's obvious if you just look in my district, the Northern Wisconsin District. If we were united in practice, we wouldn't have people like me who completely disagree with the churches who use only Contemporary Worship. I also don't think all WELS pastors agree with the doctrine of Craig Groeschel...
- 3 hours ago · Like · 1
- Joel Kluender We do not need to be united in practice where the particular practice is an adiaphoron. We must be united in practice where it is clearly a matter of confession and doctrine. Not all contemporary worship is theologically lacking. Much of it is lacking, but much of it is excellent as well. The key is having theologically sound music that points to Christ, whether the style is contemporary or older. The unity that we must care about is unity in doctrine and where there are chinks in that armor, there we must take a clear stand on the Word of God. And where unity is lacking, we pray for it and work toward it under the gracious hand of our Lord.
- Bryan Lidtke Examples of good contemporary worship? I have yet to see one. Contemporary worship songs, praise songs, are directed towards our feelings. They are uplifting so we can "accept Jesus." This is obviously false doctrine, so why do we want to worship like we agree with it? Why would we worship like those who believe the Lord's Supper is just a representation, not actually Christ's body and blood? Doctrine and practice are linked, correct? On the subject of doctrine, we do not all have the same doctrinal beliefs. There are pastors that just copy sermons from Reformed/Baptist pastors. We are not all in agreement with that, are we?
- Bryan Lidtke Here's a good article on the problems with contemporary worship.http://ecclesiaaugustana.blogspot.com/2012/11/orthodox-variety-trumps-sectarian.html
- Tim Niedfeldt Here is some awesome WELS contemporary. ( I would advise not watching this on a full stomach) http://vimeo.com/67186543
- Bryan Lidtke Notice how they don't call themselves Lutheran...
- Timothy H. Buelow Our sister church in Sweden, the LBK, produced the Svenska Folkbibeln translation. LBK has ca. 300 members. Prof. Ingemar Furberg was the NT editor. Dr. Seth Erlandsson was the OT editor. Sv. Folkbibeln is the #2 selling translation in Sweden. #1 was paid for by the Swedish government and a free copy was mailed to every family in Sweden for free. Pretty stiff competition. Every time someone in WELS says "We can't do this" I can't keep the word "wimp" from running through my head. Not only CAN it be done, it HAS been done - in our time! Kudos to Pres. Schroeder for daring to take a good stand.
- Timothy H. Buelow @Noah Bater, the Beck translation has been offered to WELS to use as a base for revision for FREE by Reu Beck, who is a WELS member. In addition, $250,000 has been pledged to be used as seed money for translation work, if only we will take up the work.13 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Joel Kluender You have a different definition of contemporary music, if you have yet to see an example of "good" contemporary music. You equate contemporary music with music that is all me-centered feelings, all directed toward decision theology, etc. Those things are matters of theology, I agree. But music style - selection of instruments, selections of key and setting, tempo and other things that clearly are adiaphoron do not make music unacceptable by definition.
- Wade Johnston Good on him! I think he waited to let the process take its course and spoke at a wise time. I love him as a brother and so I take his words and actions in the kindest possible way. And should someone take his words with added emphasis, we did call him to be the president of our synod.12 minutes ago · Like · 1
- Bryan Lidtke Sure. I don't want a praise band, but different settings and tempos, etc., are fine.
---
- Paul Rydecki When the WELS repents of its condemnation of Christ and His Gospel of justification by faith alone, then maybe I'll believe it can produce a dependable translation. Until then, no chance in the world.8 hours ago · Like · 5
- Tim Niedfeldt The problem isn't in the music (although most of it is crap) It's in the desire to be contemporary, to appeal to the current age with worship that apes the evangelicals and strives to "soften" church and lure in some suckers and church shoppers. We get all post modern, and inevitably the message will change, the law gospel balance gets lost and it turns into a gospel only and then a sanctification only service. it's about being cozy and friendly and having good coffee and any notion of church goes out the window. A social club is more like it...with coffee cake.
It is a slippery slope and the WELS will slide down it. I dare one contemporary WELS church defend that it has maintained better doctrine, theology, and stuck fervently to the Lutheran church, the confessions, and even the Bible. Turning the service into a seeker/outreach tool is wrong. It is pastors and people too lazy to relate the gospel in their vocations and an attitude of " lets just put on a good show and feel good about each other and more people will come and get a few good sound bites out of it." You could have a contemporary service play a contemporary version of " A Mighty Fortress" 4 times during a service but I can tell you that church is slip slip sliding away..8 hours ago · Like · 4 - Joel Kluender I agree that a "praise band" as it typically manifests itself in many churches leads to the focus on the musicians rather than on Christ. Having said that, I have seen bands accompany worship in a way that does not detract from the gospel. It can be done. the question to ask - who is at the center of the worship service? If the answer is "Christ and Christ alone" we have done our job. If it is "the musician," then we have not. I've said my piece here... I respect opinions on the other side, just disagree. I do think we can agree that our worship MUST be centered on Christ and his gospel.
- Wade Johnston And that is how you hijack a thread.8 hours ago · Like · 3
- Tim Niedfeldt I bet Ben's computer is blowing up
- Roger Phillip Drews @Brian: Beck's translation leaves very much to be desired. It makes very little difference what Herman Otten thinks or opines.
---
Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Narrow-Minded Wonders about the Wisdom of Schroede...":
Ichabod -
Someone sent me an official WELS online posting from Synodical President Schroeder. I have yet to read it. I thought that he was of the disposition to stay out of the opinion fray and look to the holy grail decision of the WELS synodical convention on this translation issue.
If President Schroeder didn't want to influence the TEC; then why does he give an opinion before the convention? I'll have to read his opinion in earnest. It seems to me that he is attempting to be all things to everyone while riding the fence.
Please correct me if I am interpreting this action wrongly. Am I connecting some dots?
Nathan M. Bickel
www.thechristianmessage.org
www.moralmatters.org
