“Religion is like a knife: you can either use it to cut bread, or stick in someone’s back.”—Archbishop Desmond Tutu

On his Facebook page, Eddy linked to an AP story about Biblica updating the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible and publishing it in 2011. At that time, Zondervan will also cease publishing the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) that came out in 2005. (Biblica owns the copyright on both versions and Zondervan publishes them in North America.) The TNIV sought to update some of the phrasing in the NIV to reflect changes in the English language. But it was controversial because while Zondervan would continue publishing the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation that produced both versions would no longer update the NIV and the TNIV would become its primary focus for further revisions. The issue with the TNIV is that it uses gender-inclusive language. For example, “sons of God,” is now translated, “children of God.” Apparently some people were unhappy with the TNIV’s process and wanted more transparency even though Christianity Today devoted a cover story to the TNIV and the debate surrounding it and a whole book was published regarding the gender-neutral controversy.

I’d like to respond a bit to the criticism of the TNIV cited in the AP story. Regarding the changes in the TNIV,

Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God’s relationships with individuals.

The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition “has gone beyond acceptable translation standards.”

I’m curious as to what singular gender references they have in mind that have been changed so as to alter God’s relationships with individuals. In the modern English-speaking world, we don’t really have a problem with emphasizing the relationships between God and individuals. If anything, we read the Bible too individualistically, with too much of an emphasis on the individual that we run the risk of misinterpreting the texts. Granted, our language does not help us. Both Greek and Hebrew have a plural form of the second person pronoun—a “plural you,” as it were—and those pronouns are found throughout the Bible. English does not have a second person plural pronoun and so we have often read the Bible saying, “you,” as if it is speaking to the individual rather than the community. In my opinion, translating the Bible in ways that reflect the communal nature of the texts needs to be one of the primary responsibilities of translators.

I support careful gender-inclusive language in our translations and have no real issues with the TNIV. And as far as gender-inclusive translations go, the TNIV is fairly conservative in its changes. I grew up on the NIV and I think it is a fine translation. I first began using a gender-inclusive translation (the NRSV) in college when I wrote religious studies papers—the NRSV is widely accepted in academic circles. I initially liked the NRSV on a purely aesthetic level and began using it as my primary version for devotional reading. I couldn’t read Greek or Hebrew at the time, so I had no way of deciding if the NRSV was a more faithful translation or not. I still use the NRSV as my primary Bible and find it a very reliable version.

As I have studied Greek and Hebrew, I have come to appreciate gender-inclusive translations not for some politically correct reasons, but for much of the same reasons I choose to read modern biblical translations instead of the King James Version (KJV). The KJV was a fine translation for its time, reflecting the way people spoke and wrote in the 17th Century. English has changed over the centuries. We do not speak or write today as people did in the 1600’s. We do not even spell many of the same words in the same way as they did in the past. The Greek and Hebrew of the Bible have not changed—though we continue to find and use older and older manuscripts to translate—our contemporary English has changed.

The Bible was written in the earthy languages of real people who used those languages for everything in their lives: worship, conversation, trade, poetry, history, etc. Like any language, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek of the Bible were full of idiomatic phrases. When Paul wrote to his “brothers” to address the churches in his letters, no biblical scholar would say that he was only writing to men. “Brothers” was an idiom that represented the community. “Brothers,” “man,” and “men” used to be gender-inclusive terms in English, but that has changed. So I see nothing wrong with carefully translating an idiomatic phrase in a way that reflects its meaning. I make it a practice to render “brothers” as “brothers and sisters” in my own translations when it is clear that the text is addressing more than just the men of the group. This translation reflects the way we speak and write now. I do not believe that it does violence or changes the meaning of the original texts. The historical nature of the manuscripts and the ever-evolving nature of language creates a problem for translators, especially translators of Scripture. We believe that God speaks to us through the Bible and so we need the Bible to be readable. At the same time, these are historical documents written at specific times and places and we can run the risk of trying to update them. Care must be taken and I believe that the translators of the TNIV were careful.

Even the most wooden, word for word translations of the Bible are not 100% accurate. That is not merely a statement regarding grammar since word order is different and different languages often have different verb tenses. Some translation of idioms and thoughts are required to make sense to us today. Did you know that the Bible says God has a big nose? We often render the term ‘arek ‘apim, as “slow to anger” or “longsuffering,” to describe God’s divine and gracious patience. “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.” (Psalm 103.8) When translated woodenly, the term is actually “long of nose.” It’s a Hebrew idiom and makes no sense in English without translating the actual thought.

For what it is worth, I think a very wooden, very word-for-word translation of the Bible into English would be of great help to students who do not read Greek or Hebrew. It would be wonderful for the average Bible reader to be able to see how earthy some of the original idioms are and how strange they can sound to our ears. Can you imagine giving someone a complement by telling them they have a big nose?

I am skeptical that the primary reason for the cessation of the TNIV is the mea culpa from Biblica and the NIV’s handlers with regard to how the revision process took place. While Biblica is a non-profit organization, Zondervan is a subsidiary of NewsCorp, a publicly traded company. My assumption is that the TNIV just isn’t selling like they hoped it would. When the Southern Baptist Convention denounced the TNIV, they also announced that they would not sell the version in their stores. If the TNIV were more profitable, Biblica may have re-opened revision on the NIV, but I doubt Zondervan would have shut down publishing the TNIV.

Thomas Nelson is publishing The American Patriot’s Bible. (Go to the web page now and see if you can spot the typo while it’s still up. Seven points to the first person who spots it.) I’ve never been a fan of the special interest Bibles—e.g., Men’s Study Bible, Women’s Study Bible, Power Forward’s Study Bible, Heirloom Tomato Farmer’s Study Bible—but the American Patriot’s Bible seems to go too far. My belief is that the Bible should continue to prophetically speak to all nations. In my understanding of the cross and the resurrection, ethnic and national boundaries mean very little to God. I don’t mind books and discussions about how the leaders of our nation have been shaped by the Bible or what they said about the Bible. I simply don’t think that such information belongs in a Bible.

(HT: Chris Spinks and Scot McKnight)

This past Sunday, the Christian calendar marked the Ascension of the Lord (I know, it was really on May 21, but I’m a part of a protestant church that doesn’t go to worship services throughout the week, so we celebrated it on the Sunday). This weekend was also Memorial Day weekend in which people in the US remember those soldiers and sailors who died while in military service. I wonder how many congregations in the US made some mention or had some special moment in the service for Memorial Day this past Sunday, but did not mention or did not observe the Ascension?

From the essay, “Seminarians,” by Martin Marty in the most recent Sightings:

We historians are not given the gift of foreseeing, but as for seeing – as in Sightings – I learned long ago to look at trends and signs that don’t fit headlines or on cable. Thus, decades ago, while many chroniclers thought that “death of God” theology was a cosmic challenge, it occurred to some of us that “high-rise apartments and the long weekend” would do more to assault the world of Sunday Schools, church attendance, and the parish as a center of communal life. Today those trends continue, and the higher-rising of apartments and the longer-yet weekend keep playing their part. Forget the current “new atheism,” so readily reported on as an assault. Notice instead patterns of leisure like Sunday marathons and soccer, patterns of work in which 24/7 job demands increase, and now, of course, “the economic crash” that colors all prospects.

A couple of friends have posted this story on Facebook. CNN reports:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week—54 percent—said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified—more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

I find these results disheartening. Is it really true that the more people are supposedly exposed to the story of an incarnated and crucified God, the more likely they are to support torturing others? (The outliers seem to be the mainline denominations who do not support torture as much as their evangelical and Catholic family.) I cannot think of any real Christian justification for torture. Over on First Things—a journal no one would consider a bastion of liberal Christianity—Russell E. Saltzman roots his rejection of torture in a human being bearing God’s image:

I’ve been trying, like many Americas, to think this thing through. There is the altogether practical question: Did torture help us? Did it make America safer? Was the information really good, helpful, in thwarting terrorists? Did it actually in fact spoil pending plots? Frankly, the evidence is mixed.

But I really don’t care. Whether torture “worked” or not as an interrogative tactic is far from the main question. I’m a pastor. I think as a pastor, which is to say as a parish theologian. I don’t care if these guys shrieked like little girls on the playground and blubbered out plots for everything from the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre to knocking over Bagdad candy stores as juvenile delinquents. Torture is morally wrong. It is morally wrong, theologically speaking, because it is an attack upon the imago Dei, upon the image of God inherent to every human life.

One could just as easily rooted a rejection of torture in the words and actions of Jesus. “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” (Lk 6.27) How in the world can we worship a savior who endured the torture of lashings, a crown of thorns, nails in his hands, and crucifixion and think that it is morally acceptable to torture someone else? For those who have ever asked, “What would Jesus do?” can you really imagine that Jesus would strap a person to a board and subject him or her to “controlled drowning”? In mounting a Christian defense against torture, one could have used Paul and Peter as well: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.” (Rom 12.17) “Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called—that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3.9) I am outraged. I am outraged that my country would torture others and I am outraged that my sisters and brothers in the faith are more likely to support torture than the general public.

My Christian family’s support of torture is a terrible witness to the watching world.

Yesterday, I listened again to Krista Tippet’s interview with Jaroslav Pelikan on Speaking of Faith: The Need for Creeds. Later in the day, I did some reading of Pelikan on the internet. Two quotations of his have been ringing in my ears. The first I found on numerous pages:

If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen—nothing else matters.

The second quotation comes from the Speaking of Faith interview. As Pelikan and Tippet discussed the Maasai Creed, he refers to the important feedback loop evangelism creates. As we reach out and express the Christian story in ways that make sense to different cultures, we find that we understand new aspects and see new angles of the story.

[I]t is not enough to Christianize Africa. We have to Africanize Christianity.

Unpacking the riches in these two quotations could take a lifetime.

In an excerpt from The Joyful Christian, C.S. Lewis aptly describes the necessity of both personal experience and doctrine in the Christian life. He shows the connection between the two. As someone who has encountered God in the study of Christian beliefs, I face the regular challenge to remember that knowing things about God is not the same thing as knowing God. To read about doctrine is not the same thing as encountering the real God. On the other hand, I appreciate Lewis’ description of doctrine as the amalgamation of lots of peoples’ real encounters with God. Anyway, here is Lewis:

In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, “I’ve no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I’m a religious man too. I know there’s a God. I’ve felt him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that’s just why I don’t believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about him. To anyone who’s met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!”

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real, to something less real. In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from real waves to a bit of colored paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only colored paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together. In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you or I are likely to get on our own way are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map.

Via a link from Tony Jones, I have enjoyed the word clouds on Wordle. Here are a few word clouds taken from the texts of some sermons I’ve given. You can see the rest here.

“When God Changed the Rules,” Jeremiah 31.31-34

“Behind Locked Doors,” John 20.19-23

“A Mother, a Disciple,” Luke 1.46-56

President Obama’s recently signed an order lifting the ban on government money funding embryonic stem cell research. USA Today reported,

The audience burst into applause at several points when Obama implicitly rebuked former president George W. Bush for what opponents have characterized as making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science.

I won’t comment on the order signed by Obama. I want to use this matter as an illustration of a fallacy in our thinking. Those who have criticized President Bush for “making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science” are not without an ideology themselves. Their beliefs of what constitutes “sound science” and how science should shape how the government funds research follow an ideology. Everyone holds ideologies, especially when it comes to areas of morality and politics. Ideology is a neutral term. An ideology comprises a set of beliefs, values, and doctrines that guide a person or group and I can think of no one who is void of ideology. I am fond of saying everyone has a theology because everyone has some beliefs about divinity. The person who does not believe in a divine being, or the person who says there is no way we can truly know if there is a divine being, hold as much a theological position as the Christian who recites the Nicene Creed. Ideology works the same way. The most pragmatic utilitarian position that seeks to do the least amount of harm for the least amount of people adheres to an ideology. To criticize someone for letting ideology guide their decision-making is a rather weak argument. The question is not will we let ideology shape our public policy, but what ideologies do we let shape our public policies?

We may disagree vehemently with another person’s ideology, but it gets us nowhere to criticize the person for being ideological. Each ideology has non-negotiable points and we can debate whether those non-negotiables do more harm than good. Even a total laissez-faire attitude comes from an ideology with strong non-negotiables. The amount of non-negotiables in an ideology, the positions of an ideology, how stridently that ideology requires adherence, all these matters are open to critique. So is the way in which a person chooses to conform to the ideology. In other words, to criticize someone or some position for being “ideological” does not get to the heart of the matter because there is no such thing as a non-ideological person or a non-ideological position. When people criticize others for being ideological, they are really criticizing the ideology’s non-negotiables for being wrong, or they are criticizing others for being unwilling to listen to different information. We should not strive for an ideology-free society—as if there ever could be one—but a society that values and adheres to good ideologies.