Showing posts with label NIV WELS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NIV WELS. Show all posts

Monday, September 9, 2013

All Your Bibles Are Belong To Us.
Murdoch News Corpse Unit Buying Thomas Nelson.
Make Your Time, Ha Ha Ha

News Corp. unit buying Thomas Nelson

CEO of local company says HarperCollins brings infrastructure to grow faster
Publishing giant HarperCollins, a unit of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., has signed a deal to buy Thomas Nelson from private-equity firm Kohlberg & Co. for an undisclosed sum.
The purchase, which is expected to close later this year, will bring 213-year-old Thomas Nelson under the umbrella of one of the world's media groups and the owner of fellow Christian-oriented publisher Zondervan. Company officials on Monday said both companies will maintain separate operations, but did not comment on possible layoffs at Thomas Nelson, which employs about 600 people.
“HarperCollins’ global print and digital publishing platform, which includes e-book distribution into more than 175 markets, Print-on-Demand, Digital-to-Print at Retail, and worldwide marketing reach, provides an opportunity to further expand the readership of Thomas Nelson’s distinguished authors,” said Brian Murray, president and CEO of HarperCollins Publishers Worldwide, in a statement. “Thomas Nelson adds further balance to our existing publishing programs. Its broad inspirational appeal is a good complement to Zondervan, which will continue to publish books consistent with its mission.”
Thomas Nelson CEO Mark Schoenwald, who only took the helm of the company in April, called the acquisition "an attractive strategic fit." Schoenwald also told Publishers Weekly the deal gives his team the platforms to accelerate its digital and international growth plans, saying "they can be a multiplier for us."
Kohlberg had owned a majority of Thomas Nelson since the spring of last year, when it bought out Intermedia Partners. In announcing the deal then, Kohlberg officials said they would recruit new board members to the company. Among them: Former HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman.
WELS does not allow anyone to admit that
Murdoch owns their precious NNIV,
but they are free to question the mental health
of anyone who dissents from their wisdom.
After all, Ski is their Sexpert.



Friday, August 9, 2013

Defending Heresy - Exposing the ELCA.
Gafney and Wendland Equally Keen on Rewriting the Bible



Defending Heresy - Exposing the ELCA:

Over the past day I've been getting a number of comments in support of Dr. Wil Gafney, an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, an ELCA Seminary. The people writing recently found a blog I wrote back in May regarding a blog written by Dr. Gafney where she posted a picture of Jesus as a female. (read my blog here) Those who commented thought the picture was great. They expressed that Dr. Gafney is a wonderful professor and attempted to justify what she did and wrote. Many of them justified the female Jesus picture by pointing to the verse where Jesus says,“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” - Matt. 23:37. Somehow, because Jesus referenced a female chicken, these people think Jesus was a woman. 

Some of the comments I received:

From an ELCA pastor – Dr. Gafney's “. . . teaching and preaching build up the faith and instill a deep interest in knowing more about our Scriptures, something you sadly know nothing about. Go and educate yourself.”

From another ELCA pastor - “Do you honestly have so little imagination that you cannot see that God is greater than gender, color or race? Your God is too small, too white and too male as far as I can tell.”

“I am so glad that ELCA pastors in training are being taught by Dr. Gafney. Too few seminarians are learning robust feminist and womanist theologies . . .”

“I think Dr. Gafney is one of our most gifted and prophetic voices in our church.”

“It troubles me that my beloved church may actually have paid for your education which you are now abusing in order to propagate such flawed and hateful statements. Shame shame on you.”

“Clearly the author of this reflection is at best novice and at worst ignorant of how social realities impact theological reflection. Please spend time doing something more productive than objecting to the scholastic innovation that comes from Dr. Gafney.”

“I think the Christa image is beautiful and thought-provoking.”

“The Rev. Dr. Gafney opens up, by her meticulous scholarship, access to images of God that are not only scriptural but deeply needed in a world that is increasingly polarized by racist, sexist and homophobic agendas.”

Most of the people who support Dr. Gafney's female Jesus picture are liberals who warp Christianity and Scripture to their own liking so much so that many of them do not even worship the God of the Bible anymore. In their lost-ness, they would likely still sing Dr. Gafney's praises even in view of the professor's belief that Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, is the Holy Spirit. (see here) I'm not joking. As you can see, that is what she believes. Is this thinking and foundation for teaching “scholastic innovation” and “meticulous scholarship?” No. It's heresy! People in the ELCA need to know what is happening in their church and what their leaders are teaching. 

'via Blog this'

---

Title/Position: 
 Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament
Email: 
 wgafney@Ltsp.edu
Type: 
 Faculty
Education: BA Earlham College, 1987; MDiv Howard University School of Divinity, 1997; Graduate Certificate in Women’s Studies, Duke University, 2000; PhD in Hebrew Bible, Duke University, 2006. 
The Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney is an Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. Her course offerings include: Heroines, Harlots and Handmaids: the Women of the Hebrew Scriptures with sections on "Cosmic Herstory," "Carnal Knowledge" and "Postcolonial Musings," and Prophetic Constructions, which explores prophets who do not have canonical books attributed to them, including better-known prophets such as Miriam and Nathan, Elijah and Elisha, along with lesser-known prophets such as the woman with whom Isaiah fathered a child and Zedekiah the Canaanite. Her approach to teaching the Hebrew Scriptures includes emphasizing archaeology, comparative ancient Near Eastern literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Her newer courses include Suffering in Job and the Holocaust, An Introduction to the Dead Seas Scrolls, and Exodus in African and African American Exegesis. From time to time, contemporary syllabi will be posted at the bottom of this page.
Her interest in the ancient Near Eastern and biblical portrayals of Lilith and other night-stalking creatures led to her participation in two HBO documentaries on the origin and evolution of vampire mythologies, True Bloodlines: Vampire Legends and True Bloodlines: A New Type in 2008, airing before the series premier of True Blood.
Dr. Gafney, an ordained Episcopal priest, is a member of the historic African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas in Philadelphia, PA. Founded in 1792, it is the first Episcopal church in the U.S. founded by and for African Americans. She is also a member of the Dorshei Derekh Reconstructionist Minyan of the Germantown Jewish Centre, in Philadelphia. She is particularly interested in how Jews and Christians interpret the texts they hold in common.
Dr. Gafney is a former US Army Reserve chaplain. And, she served the Thompson Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church as pastor before joining the Episcopal Church.
Among her research interests are feminist biblical studies, rabbinic studies, and issues in translation. Dr. Gafney's series of bible studies in Genesis was published in the Abingdon Pastor's Bible Study, Volume III, in 2006. Her monograph, Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel, and thePeoples' Bible, which she co-edited, are available through Fortress Press. Her recent projects include an exploration of motherhood in messianic genealogies in "Mother Knows Best: Messianic Surrogacy and Sexploitation in Ruth" inMother Goose, Mother Jones, Mommie Dearest: Biblical Mothers and their Children (Brill), and a commentary on Ruth and article on responsible Christian exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures in the African diasporic biblical commentaryThe Africana Bible (Fortress).  Dr. Gafney has also contributed to the Lutheran Study Bible, now available through Fortress, and is anticipating publication of a commentary on the book of Numbers in the "African Women's Bible Commentary." Her essay on transformative teaching practices, “Intoxicating Teaching as Transformational Pedagogy” in the volume edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Kent Harold Richards, Transforming Graduate Biblical Education: Ethos and Discipline was published by the Society of Biblical Literature in 2010.
A number of Dr. Gafney's sermons in Jewish and Christian congregations are posted in her blog. In most cases, the translation of the scriptures is her own. Dr. Gafney also is a blogger on the Huffington Post - follow her writing here. Visit Dr. Gafney's Amazon author page here.

SP Mark Schroeder Had an Opinion?
I Must Have Nodded Off

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/08/lets-turn-non-decision-into-good.html

MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2013


Let's Turn a Non-Decision into a Good Decision!


Dear Readers,

I encourage each and every one of you this morning to sit down and write a letter in your own words to our Synod President regarding the issue of Bible translation.

I urge you to tell him that you supported his effort to have our synod produce a truly Lutheran Bible in English, and that you very disappointed that the recent convention was persuaded by other leaders not to pursue this very worthwhile project.

In addition, please tell him of your total and complete dissatisfaction with the so-called "New" New International Version, aka NIV 2011, and that you desire that our Northwestern Publishing NOT use this translation in any publication of any kind ever.

If you want to, go ahead and make a suggestion as to which other translation you would like to see used.

Please copy the VP of Publishing at NPH, Rev. John Braun, and your own district president. Indeed, if you are so inclined, copy ALL the district presidents.  All addresses you will need are copied below directly out of the WELS Yearbook.

If you would like to share your letter with other readers, email a copy here to us at Intrepid Lutherans, and we'll publish them on the blog as we get them.

Please to this TODAY, so you don't forget!

Thank you and God bless you all!

Pastor Spencer

  

Rev. Mark Schroeder
N16 W23377 Stone Ridge Dr.
Waukesha, WI  53188

Rev. John Braun
1250 N. 113th St.
Milwaukee, WI  53226

Rev. Jon Buchholz
1821 E. Apollo Rd.
Phoenix, AZ  85042

Rev. Charles Degner
326 N. 9th St.
St. Peter, MN  56082

Rev. Douglas Engelbrecht
249 E. Franklin Ave.
Neenah, WI  54956

Rev. John Guse
716 Song Bird Way
Woodstock, GA  30188

Rev. Theodore Lambert
6027 Peregrine Ct.
Bremerton, WA  98312

Rev. Peter Naumann
620 9th St. W
Mobridge, SD  57601

Rev. Donald Patterson
1719 Fort Grants Dr.
Round Rock, TX  78665

Rev. Herbert Prahl
S8441 Michael Dr.
Eau Claire, WI  54701

Rev. David Rutschow
527 63rd St.
Downers Grove, IL  60516

Rev. John Seifert
907 Mattes Dr.
Midland, MI  48642

Rev. Donald Tollefson
40 Coleman Rd.
Long Valley, NJ  07853

Rev. Earle Treptow
2610 S. Wadsworth Blvd.
Denver, CO  80227

9 COMMENTS:

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
I don't think any of the people above will be at all interested in my letters or my recommendations, but for our readers, my hands down recommendation is the NKJV.
Daniel Baker said...
But what if you didn't support his effort to have our synod produce its own translation? lol If I had I definitely would have spoken up in support of it. Albeit I almost did anyway, just because of how ludicrous the arguments against it were.
Pastor Spencer said...
Daniel, that's fine. I understand. To all out there with Daniel's concern. So, ok, maybe you didn't and don't support a "WELS translation" so to speak. Still, you can certainly oppose the NNIV, and let that be known by the President, your DP, and NPH. That is worth a letter all by itself!
Anonymous said...
I would back the NKJV over a WELS Translation. Now the NKJV didn't even make the final three recommended for NPH to use. Is anyone willing to explain why the NKJV/Textus Receptus is/was such a nonstarter for the TEC?

Lee Liermann
Anonymous said...
Pastor Spencer,

Could Intrepid Lutherans print the Bible translation resolution that was approved at the convention? I understood the approved resolution limited the translation choices to three, the 2011 NIV, the ESV and the HCSB. But I've heard a lot of discussion that implies that any and all translations are acceptable. I can understand where that discussion comes from, based on statements made by Wendland and others, but what does the approved resolution say?

Writing a letter advocating one translation and opposing another has reduced effectiveness if the addressee can hide behind an approved convention resolution that limits translation options.

I might add that I wrote to all of the TEC members early on in the 2011 NIV saga, and was never given the courtesy of a reply from any of them. In fact, of all of the synod leaders I have ever written to, on this or any other topic of doctrinal concern, only synod President Schroeder has given the courtesy of replying to my messages. I think this speaks volumes to the attitude of synod leadership (excluding President Schroeder) towards lay people and their concerns.

Vernon
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
Pastor Spencer said...
Vernon,

The Resolution is printed below. Note that NIV11, ESV, and Holman are indeed mentioned specifically. However, note also that the TEC found that "all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in ALL the translations we have considered.” (emphasis mine) No list was given of ALL those considered. I would certainly doubt, for example, that the New World (JW) translation was considered. But if one drew the conclusion that most, if not all, other translations are "acceptable," for WELS members, I don't see how that could be wrong. Of course, acceptable for what use is a whole other question.

And yes, President Schroeder should be commended for answering almost all inquiries directed to him. It is unfortunate that our other leaders to not always make similar efforts.


Floor Committee 21: Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC)

Subject: Option 2

Reference: Book of Reports and Memorials, pp. 69-78; 211-215 (memorials 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 29, 30)

Resolution No. 1

WHEREAS 1) we strive to follow the direction found in Ephesians 4:2-3, "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" and in Philippians 1:27, "Stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel”; and

WHEREAS 2) the TEC evaluation of the "Review of the 102" noted that each of the three translations (NIV2011, ESV, HCSB) "has some generally recognized strengths" but also "some generally recognized weaknesses" (BORAM, p. 73); and

WHEREAS 3) the TEC concluded that “As a committee we are convinced that all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in all the translations we have considered” (BORAM, p. 77); and

WHEREAS 4) the TEC has produced a four-part Bible study for congregational use to help lay people become more familiar with translational issues; and

WHEREAS 5) it is apparent that no consensus has developed in the synod for the use of a single translation, as is evident from the memorials submitted to the synod from a broad sampling of the districts that dealt with the translation issue; and

WHEREAS 6) Northwestern Publishing House (NPH) will be able to use NIV84 for current published products and may be able to continue to use it for some future products; therefore be it

Resolved, a) that the synod in convention adopt the second option of the TEC report, that WELS does not adopt a single Bible translation for use in its publications at this time but use an eclectic approach; and be it further

Resolved, b) that we encourage NPH to choose whichever translation it deems best for a particular publication; and be it further

Resolved, c) that all the congregations in the WELS be encouraged to use the four-part Bible study that the TEC produced; and be it finally

Resolved, d) that we, as members of the WELS standing firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel, fix our hearts on this one unshakable truth: the Word of our God endures forever.

Pastor Joel Gaertner, chairman
Pastor Mark Gabb, secretary

ADOPTED
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
As noted in the post I linked, Resolved (b) was specifically amended to open up NPH's choices beyond the three that were studied. (I watched the streaming of that portion of the convention.)
Karissa Tilbury said...
The argument that appeared repeatedly to support the synod’s decision to use an existing translation dealt with the time and burden that an independent translation would impose on the faculty at MLC and WLS. As a person who is currently a PhD student, I get a little bit of an insight into life as a professor. Professors outside of the synodical training system are juggling research funding, course development, writing and reviewing publications, training undergraduate and graduate students, and serving on several committees. Professors are busy people and they learn how and when to delegate to their senior graduate students. Why don’t we hold the professors in the synodical training schools to the same standards? As students progress through their academic careers, their budding careers are fostered through various tasks that are delegated by their advisors. Currently I believe that the synodical training is sufficient, but I think we can strive for improvements. Seminary students are essentially equivalent to graduate or professional (medical, dental, law etc.) students, therefore we should ensure the rigor of their training matches other graduate and professional training programs. The seminary has resurrected the senior thesis project, which is a promising first step, but it could easily be altered to be a culmination of four years of mentored research that is useful for the synod and its members. Clearly the projects will all be different as not all men training for the pastoral office have the same skill sets, but one can imagine those gifted with language abilities could participate in the translation efforts. This example provides additional ‘free’ hands to work on the translation project and at the same time ensures that we are grooming the next generation of language professors within the synod. The same professor-mentored research projects could be applied to the continual education programs offed by the seminary, to permit influence from experienced pastors in the field.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

From Intrepid Lutherans - The 2013 WELS Retreat from the Bible


twissted.sisster has left a new comment on your post "From Intrepid Lutherans - The 2013 WELS Retreat fr...":

Leave it to the WELS to make indecisiveness their decision and waste time and money in doing so. I see it as a rubberstamp of the NNIV. They could have voted it out right then and there but instead NPH will now be able to use it at will. Buyers beware!

---

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/08/2013-wels-convention-and-endorsement-of.html#more

THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2013

2013 WELS Convention and the Endorsement of NIV 2011.


The following discussion was held on the Facebook Wall of Daniel Baker -- who was a delegate to this year's WELS Convention -- and is reproduced here with his permission. There are several points in this discussion worth consideration, and worth responding to -- sooner being better than later.
  1. Even though the 2011 Synod Convention called for the TEC to educate the laity so that they would be prepared for the task of choosing a translation, can anyone say there was much evidence that such had happened? Did the delegates display evidence suggesting they were prepared to thoughtfully deliberate the issues?
  2. What does it really mean to decide that "All translations are equally deficient, so we will use them all"...?
  3. What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, so it is a disparagement of God's Word to cast doubt on any of them"...?
  4. What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, isn't it wonderful that we have God's Word in so many forms"...?
  5. How crippling is the division in our Synod?
  6. Why is it that the "New Method Lutherans," in addition to harangue-ing everyone to become relevant by absorbing pop-culture into the church, also seem to be the one's pushing post-Modern linguistics? 
  7. What do you think about endorsing a given translation (NKJV was suggested below), and mounting an education campaign targeted at the laity, with the specific purpose of warning about the dangers of "Dynamic Equivalence" and "Functional Equivalence" and identifying their roots in post-Modern philosophy, while building up the virtues of Formal and Optimal Equivalence?
  8. Knowing that the CoP and the entire faculties of MLC and WLS, along with what appears to be a majority of WELS Administrators, are on the side of the "New Method Lutherans," what would you think of such and effort knowing that it would come from outside those sources, and probably rely on scholarship from outside WELS?
Be assured, the "New Method Lutherans" see the endorsement of NIV 2011 alongside all other translation as a big opportunity to drive forward with the next big NIV release. They'll be better organized next time. And they are always better funded.

What other options or considerations may there be?



Daniel Baker at 2013 WELS Convention
Daniel Baker
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 Translation" seemed to be overwhelming. There were even a number of speakers and a proposed amendment to strike "Confessional Lutheran" from the Resolution.
  • The outgoing editor of NPH was on the TFC, which supported and recommended NNIV.
  • NNIV is clearly on the list of NPH options, and prior to an amendment was the first on a short list of three options for their use.
  • Sem. Profs made it clear that the result of the "eclectic approach" would be settling on just one translation - by "herd" decision, as one pastor and televangelist delegate put it.
As such, it seems clear to me that we are far from out of the NNIV woods.
1Like ·  · 
  • 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.
  • 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 as a translation to be avoided. In the words of Seminary Presidents 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


    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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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."
  • 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.
  • Intrepid Lutherans Among the clergy, I would tend to agree with Rev. Rydecki, based on my limited and informal experience. 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."
  • Intrepid Lutherans Yeah, sounds like Marx, too.......
  • 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!" stateme
    nt 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