Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed: WELS NIV Debate Summarized

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Here's a summary of the WELS Convention's translation issue:

1. We approved all translations of Holy Scripture for use in our publications (the "eclectic approach").
2. We gave NPH sole discretion to decide what translations to use.
3. An overwhelming majority (over 3/4ths) voted against a Confessional Lutheran translation.

Some general observations:
Opposition to a "Confessional Lutheran...See More

1Like · · Share

Bryan Lidtke, Paul Rydecki, Jeffery Clark and 5 others like this.
Angela Gawel Al's not here to translate anymore. I think I get the gist but sometime I will have to have someone explain it:) just one question ... What would Alfred think of the outcome?

5 hours ago via mobile · Like
Daniel Baker He would probably have mixed feelings like the rest of us.

5 hours ago · Like
Paul Rydecki More like, you are deep in the heart of the NNIV forest.

5 hours ago · Like · 5
Intrepid Lutherans Been thinking about this for several minutes after Committee 22 completed (and I posted this, below, too). Initially hopeful after last night's vote on Resolution 1 from Committee 21, the defeat of Resolution 1 from Committee 22 makes Resolution 1 of Committee 21 merely an acknowledgement of the fact that (a) all translations are equally deficient, and (b) we're really okay with that. No one could bring themselves to reject, say, the Watchtower as a translation to be avoided, the Douay-Rheims as a translation to be avoided, or even the "LOL-cat" translation of the Bible (http://www.lolcatbible.com) as a translation to be avoided. In the words of Wendland and Cherney, "They are all equally God's Word! Isn't it a wonderful thing that we have God's Word in so many forms?" It is apparent to me, however, that there are really two, and only two, reasons the WELS faculties opposed this -- and neither has anything to do with money or time. (1) Their is a stark division in WELS regarding linguistic philosophy, which impacts our fundamental understanding of the nature and function of language, and consequently, the nature of that which was Breathed by God, and thus also, the appropriate Christian principles for translating God's Word into English or any other language. This division is exposed now, yet we are led to believe that we can live with this division as if it does not impact our working together. Yet, a WELS translation effort will fail to progress beyond merely starting on this very point -- and that failure WILL EXPOSE HOW TRULY CRIPPLING THIS DIVISION IS. (2) Even though we most certainly do have the *technical skill* to translate the Bible, we simply do not have the *literary talent* to produce an excellent translation. Like it or not, the KJV is *still* the standard of literary excellence, and they know that the product of any translation effort we would undertake would be compared to the KJV, and failing to measure up, would simply land somewhere in the plethora of *equally flat and deficient* translations we already have to choose from, none of which really distinguish themselves. A general rejection of our translation as an excellent one, on such grounds, would likely represent a general indictment of our school system, which is so highly respected. That's my take on this. -DL

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project
lolcatbible.com

Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly. This is the lolcat Bible Translat...See More

5 hours ago · Like · 4
Timothy H. Buelow Still trying to find a positive take, I do believe that we were earlier in this position: Prove to us why we shouldn't just keep using NIV (even if it's a different animal) and now we are in this position: Prove to me which Bible we should primarily use. And NNIV supporters are now under the burden of proof they didn't have before.

5 hours ago · Like · 2
Paul Rydecki Tim, what difference is there between the two positions in practice? Who has to prove anything anymore to anyone?

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Intrepid Lutherans Yeah, that's the other side of this. Minds still need changing. The outcome of this Convention certainly means that the issues of translation will continue to be debated. I suppose that's a good thing, for the many who yet need to be taught, and for others who need (and are willing) to have their minds changed. I, for one, am growing weary... -DL

4 hours ago · Like · 3
Daniel Baker As am I. The number of "nice speech, but I think Luther believed in a balance of dynamic and formal equivalence" comments I got was mind-boggling.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Paul Rydecki Rather than further debate, I think these decisions turn translation into a non-issue ad infinitum.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Timothy H. Buelow Repeatedly, people said this was a 5-7 year solution. So during the next 5-7 years, the debate and sorting will continue. That gives people like me, for example, the chance to promote NKJV, which wasn't even on the table before. It also gives people time to rethink opposition to ESV, because it gives pastors the implicit approval to maybe switch to ESV for Sunday readings, etc.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Intrepid Lutherans When you come up with a plan to promote the NKJV, let me know. That's my choice, too. Maybe an organized effort of some sort is needed....-DL

4 hours ago · Like · 4
Timothy H. Buelow Paul, as long as pastors have to wrestle with answering their confirmation parents question of which Bible to buy their kids, this will never be a forgotten non-issue.

4 hours ago · Like
Daniel Baker Someone said (I think it was you, Pr. Buelow) that Zondervan also purchased the NKJV? What would the feasibility of our own "contemporization" of the KJV be?

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Intrepid Lutherans Thomas Nelson, publisher of NKJV, was purchased by Murdock -- the same guy who owns Zondervan...

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Paul Rydecki The average pastor will answer that question, "Whatever Bible translation NPH chooses to use for our synod's catechism." I don't see it going any deeper than that for the majority of pastors.

4 hours ago · Like · 4
Timothy H. Buelow There are partially updated versions of the KJV available as public domain for anyone who wants to use them as a base for further revision.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Timothy H. Buelow But NKJV is not being revised anymore. It's set.

4 hours ago · Like
Timothy H. Buelow I believe the synod is free to, and hopefully will, use more than one translation in the Catechism. That is in fact what the ELS catechism does.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Steve Spencer Since ALL translations were approved for use, this means that the NNIV was approved - that's the bottom line. This makes WELS more "progressive" (i.e. liberal) than the ELS, LCMS, and Southern Baptists. Now, that is really going to help our outreach - right?! ;-} Thus, we decided - once again - not to decide; except to reject our President's suggestion. Can we say, "Lame Duck?!"

4 hours ago · Like · 5
Timothy H. Buelow Well, Steve, we voted to say no to our seminary president. That's not a small thing.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Intrepid Lutherans And now with another bright side, here, perhaps. Leaving open the option, now, for NPH to use NKJV, means that they can also begin republishing older works that use(d) the KJV with minimal redevelopment cost... -DL

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Paul Rydecki The synod is now free to do what NPH wants. Does anyone doubt that a good percentage of catechism passages will be taken from the NNIV, thus essentially promoting it (even if others may also be represented)?

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Steve Spencer Good point, Tim. Still, if I were the ELS I'd be very nervous. At least they REJECTED the NNIV for use. And, what prevents Mequon from requiring the NNIV for use by the students? I'll give you odds that this is exactly what happens.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Intrepid Lutherans NPH has TWO potent sources which drive their editorial decisions. One is Synod. The other is the consumer (the laity,principally). Boycott efforts DO work... Without pressure from the consumer, however, no I don't doubt that they will use NNIV exclusively.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Paul Rydecki That's one thing that caused great confusion at this convention. "Loyalty to the synod," which is the chief deciding factor in, I dare say, most cases, became ambiguous, because synod president promotes Option 2, while seminary president promotes both options 1 and 2, but favors 1. Nonetheless, seminary president also endorsed Option 2, while being against doing a new translation. So, if you look at it, the convention actually supported the seminary president as well as they could by choosing Option 2 (which Schroeder also promoted), while rejecting Schroeder's appeal to do a new translation, thus supporting the seminary president.

4 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Jerome T. Gernander The ELS has always left it up to congregations. The NKJV is used in the Hymnary, which for me gives it precedence. However, the ELS catechism committee very unwisely chose not to follow that, and uses PREDOMINANTLY the old NIV, a very bad choice, in my opinion; with some exceptions (e.g. Philippians 2:5-8). We use the black catechism but I have the kids look up the verses in their NKJV. Our school uses NKJV, and our church gives each 2nd grader an NKJV Bible. (I do like the ESV as well.) I would support print-on-demand catechisms with the translation that the congregation uses.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Paul Rydecki To me, it appears that Wendland outmaneuvered Schroeder.

4 hours ago · Like
Intrepid Lutherans All of Wendland's allies seemed to be vocal at key times on the Convention floor, that's for sure. There were lot's of them there, too.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Daniel Baker Well as I just heard in the lunch line, it's not too late to form a relationship with Zondervan. Perhaps a future rendition of the NIV.

4 hours ago · Like
Timothy H. Buelow The rejection of NNIV as an exclusive translation was not much of a possibility two years ago. Now it has happened because lay delegates were given the information they needed in most districts. That is a huge development and points to a rising awareness among pastors also that this is serious. Thus I disagree that only a few care. I believe the evidence calls that bluff. Now the important thing will be to take the opportunity of a level playing field and redouble efforts to teach positively about the relative merits of more formal equivalence.

4 hours ago · Like · 4
Paul Rydecki Tim, if the majority (certainly the vocal majority) of the seminary professors, including the president, weren't so vociferously advocating dynamic equivalence, you may have gotten some traction on that suggestion. But if I had the power to make guarantees, I would guarantee you that there will not be a rising up of opposition to the synod's own seminary. Will never happen. Not ever.

4 hours ago · Like · 2
Timothy H. Buelow Paul, you sound a little like "I, even I am the only one left" who would ever consider that my professors' opinions are just that. When we were at sem, there was always debate whether, for example, Kuske's take on the hermeneutics of typology was "the only right way." And you could always play one prof off another. I have two boys there, so I know this takes place.

4 hours ago · Like · 1
Timothy H. Buelow Further, Paul, you also know there is a spectrum between formal and dynamic equivalence. I personally like Holman's "optimal equivalence."

4 hours ago · Like
Paul Rydecki It was the absolute inability to even question the opinions of professors that has led to my fortuitous (though unintentional) departure from the synod. I would be happy to be proven wrong about this synodical handicap, but so far, history supports my prediction.

4 hours ago · Like
Intrepid Lutherans Among the clergy, I would tend to agree with Rev. Rydecki, based on my limited and informal experience locally. Even those who know better seem to be reticent to vocalize opposition to Synod in any form, especially if that means they might be critical of the Seminary. But what I heard at this convention from the *laity* convinces me that they *are* paying attention, and are willing to question both Synod and the Seminary. The startling decline of culture around them is teaching them to question everything these days, I think. I don't know, maybe we at IL are helping them. Then again, maybe we're a hindrance. Either way, they're *clearly* calling upon that which they have been taught, and finding that what they are now being told doesn't sound right. They might not know precisely what, but something isn't right, they know it, and they are looking for information. They didn't get information prompting them to oppose the NNIV from Synod, or from the TEC... -DL

4 hours ago · Like · 4
Paul Rydecki Since I mentioned Orwell's 1984 the other day, "If there is hope, it lies with the proles."

4 hours ago · Like
Intrepid Lutherans Yeah, sounds like Marx, too.......

4 hours ago · Like
Joe Jewell "...we voted to say no to our seminary president. That's not a small thing..."

That's a good point--strong culture against this in the WELS! I got Faceblocked by a WELS pastor yesterday for suggesting that the Sem prez's "They all have flaws!" statement as a justification for not trying to choose the best option was postmodern relativism. Seems like a pretty noncontroversial point to me, to be honest, since I feel like the TEC was leaning pretty heavily on the idea that it's all a very subjective question. But hey, what do I know--just a layman here!

That said, I don't think we said "No" *enough*. We should have said "No" to the NIV2011 altogether.

This whole concept of "the professor is always right and it is unbrotherly to say otherwise [especially for a layman, who can't possibly know what he's talking about, right?]" is so foreign to me as a scientist. In my field, no one is so off-limits that his work and opinions aren't subject to vigorous criticism and competing analysis!

3 hours ago · Like · 6
Intrepid Lutherans Maybe that's my problem, Joe. I studied too much science and mathematics in college, and expect a rigorous proof for all conclusions (which are "truth" or at least "fact" assertions).... -DL

3 hours ago · Like · 1

---

Joe Jewell Two years ago during the first go-round with the TEC the video feed on the WELS site actually had the chat window in the corner next to it enabled (probably just because that was the default option). There was pretty vigorous discussion going on--challenging, but appropriate; nothing more than what was being said on the floor by lay delegates--but given that the discussion was almost entirely anti-TEC and anti-NIV2011, of course whatever Synod minder was in charge turned off the function about 30 minutes into the session.