From SP Mark Schroeder, WELS:
I apologize that the earlier copy of En Christo contained two errors. Please note that two pastors from each district attended the symposium, not three. Also note that an important word was omitted in the paragraph that begins "In addition to the fact that the TEC has . . ." The word "not" was omitted: the sentence should read, ". . . a number of other factors indicate that it may not be wise to make a final decision this summer." The corrections are included in the version below.
Fellow servants,
As you know, for more than a year we have been involved in discussions about the selection of a translation to be used in WELS publications. For a church body like ours, firmly committed to the truth of the inspired and inerrant Scriptures and to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, few discussions could be more important. I know this is one more e-mail in your already full in-box, but I believe it's important for all of our called workers to be well informed of the facts of this process and what will be happening in the coming months.
As part of the ongoing effort to foster brotherly discussion and to clarify the issues involved in a translation choice, the Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) organized a symposium held in early January. The symposium was attended by two pastors from each district (appointed by their respective district presidents) and the members of both the TEC and the Translation Feasibility Committee (TFC). Its purpose was not to promote one translation or to achieve consensus on a particular translation. Rather, it was intended to provide a forum to hear and discuss all sides of the translation issue and to work toward consensus on the translation principles that will guide our decision.
According to those who attended the symposium, it was a fruitful and beneficial gathering. Unfortunately, a summary of the symposium was circulated rather widely that unintentionally conveyed some inaccurate information. President Paul Wendland asked me to relay this message to you:
"There seem to be some misunderstandings circulating regarding the nature, the purpose, and the outcome of the TEC committee's recent symposium on translation. Out of a sense of love and fairness to all who were there, I offer the following as an attempt to clarify matters.
We (the TEC) felt that the symposium had served a good purpose. All of us came away with a deeper understanding of the complex choices that need to be made in translating God's Word into English. All of us were given ample opportunity to speak about our translational preferences and concerns, especially as those concerns applied to the NIV 2011. United in the belief that the Bible is God's inspired word and in our conviction that Christ is the center of the Scripture, we were able to discuss our preferences in a frank, and yet in a very fair and brotherly way. To that end, the symposium achieved its purposes. It was never envisioned that the symposium as such would draw any conclusions or make any recommendations to the synod or to the districts about a preferred translation. As a matter of fact, we did not do so."
Contrary to the impression the circulated summary gave, no "vote" was taken at the symposium regarding a preferred translation. In fact, there was a wide range of opinion expressed about the NIV 2011; both favorable opinions as well as various concerns were expressed. In keeping with the purpose of the symposium, the participants focused their attention on translation principles and the process of translation, agreed that more discussion and study is needed, and specifically determined not to take such a vote or as a group to express a preference for any particular translation.
So where are we now? What will happen in the coming months?
After the symposium, the TEC has come to the informal conclusion that continued discussion and further study is needed before any final decision can be made. Again, President Wendland has said,
"Is it wise for us given the time constraints we've all been working under to make a final decision this summer? For one thing, have we really—either as a synod, as districts, or even as an evaluation committee—had sufficient time to make a comparative evaluation of the various versions? Since July 2011, the TEC has been active, attending conventions and gatherings in all twelve districts, writing articles and reports and e-mails. We have done our best to do as the convention asked, namely 'to educate the synod on the general principles that we ought to use to evaluate the Bible translations mentioned in its reports, and so to help build a consensus among us on which translation to use for synod publications.' But the committee is still left with the question, 'Can a delegate really say that he has been provided with enough information to compare the merits and demerits of the NIV 2011, for example, with the merits and demerits of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) so that he can vote accordingly?' "
In addition to the fact that the TEC has not had the time to study alternatives to the NIV 2011 as completely as it would like, a number of other factors indicate that it may not be wise to make a final decision this summer. When the convention determined that a decision should be made at the districts, the information available indicated that the NIV 1984 would not be able to be used in WELS publications after 2013. This has turned out not to be accurate. The "fair use" principle in copyright and publishing law indicates that Northwestern Publishing House would be able to continue using the NIV 1984 in its publications, provided that the quotations do not comprise more than 20% of the published material. In other words, NPH will be able to use the NIV 1984 in nearly all of its publications, including Meditations and Forward in Christ. Furthermore, NPH has said that it does not want its publication needs in any way to drive a final decision on translations and will find alternate solutions if necessary. For example, in the Christ-Light materials, NPH is considering a "translation neutral" approach, printing only Bible references and not the passages themselves.
All of this—the continuing concerns about NIV 2011 as well as the new information regarding the use of NIV 1984—means that the option to delay a decision may be one of the choices put before the district conventions this summer. The Conference of Presidents will be discussing this in upcoming meetings. If the COP adopts a recommendation to delay a decision, that recommendation will be forwarded to the districts for consideration.
What about the possibility of producing a new or revised translation by Lutherans? This matter is still under discussion by the TFC. If a decision is delayed by the districts this summer, additional time would be available to explore this option further. It is my personal opinion that this possibility should be pursued vigorously. While I recognize the obstacles and challenges (and many of those have been clearly voiced), it's an idea that should not be dismissed until we have carefully looked at all the factors involved. A translation (either a new one or a revision) by Lutherans would be a tremendous gift to the church. Admittedly, this option would not solve our more immediate problem with translations, but it could be a long term solution that proves to be a blessing for decades to come.
Some are concerned that this entire translation issue is an unfortunate cause of division among us. But in many ways, this entire discussion can be a blessing to us. We are not divided on doctrinal issues or the nature of Scripture itself. In all of our discussions—even those with some passion and heat—it is evident that we are completely united in our commitment to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures. It is clear that we have a fervent desire to communicate God's truth as clearly and as accurately as we can. Even among brothers there will be differences in how this can best be done. But we stand together, as Luther did, on Scripture alone. It's my prayer that our commitment to his Word will be deepened and strengthened by this process, difficult as it may sometimes be. After all, it is that Word that unites us in a common faith, committed to work together with one voice to preach the crucified and risen Christ.
Serving with you in Christ,
President Mark Schroeder
***
GJ - Scrape away all the PR and self-congratulations; the core message is - "Nineveh is dead."
On the other hand, the Left is good at push-back and the Right is good at premature celebration. Look at the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco. Komen abandoned Planned Parenthood for about 24 hours but fell on the murderous necks of the Margaret Sanger disciples, weeping that the price of their reconciliation not be too high. Komen is loud and proud for abortion again. It's about women's rights. It's about justice. It's about freedom.
That could happen with Nineveh, too.
 |
| The Love Shack Fire Department, putting out fires all over the nation. Guys. Guys! Look behind you! |
