Where's the Civility?

After Joe Wilson's recent outburst of "You lie" during Obama's health care address, I'm starting to get very concerned about the growing lack of civility in American politics. This is the fourth such incident that greatly disturbs me.

* During Clinton's presidency, Republicans hissed on several occasions and twenty of them even left early during a State of the Union address.

* In 2005, Democrats took it up a notch and booed during President Bush's State of the Union address.

* A year later, former president Jimmy Carter raised the ante even more by attacking a sitting president at Coretta Scott King's funeral while his backside was literally to President Bush who was seated behind him. (Somehow, this comes across as the most dirty trick of them all.)

Now, Joe Wilson chimes in with "You lie!' and refuses to even apologize in the chamber where his outburst took place.

Generally speaking, if an offense took place publicly, the apology should be public as well. And if you're Rep. Wilson, why not err on the side of graciousness towards those you have offended?

Both parties have muddied themselves in this debate. We desperately need for Christians to enter the political arena and be salt and light were both seem to be in short supply.

Gender Confusion in TNIV

I was asked this past Sunday about the new translation of the NIV, known as the TNIV or "Today's New International Version." The upcoming publication of this translation is problematic because it attempts to alter gender designations in the original text by replacing them with gender neutral translations.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not certain Greek words, which were written as masculine in the original text, should be translated as neutral when the context clearly implies both male and female are in mind.

Let me give an example and then share what I believe is a fundamental problem with the TNIV.
Matthew 5:9 says (NIV):

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God."

Now we all know that by using "sons," Jesus was not saying that only men are blessed by making peace. Common sense tells us that this applies to women as well as men. As a result, the TNIV translates the same verse by saying "they will be called the children of God." One could correctly argue that this better captures the meaning of the verse.

My problem with the above is that God chose, for whatever reason, to inspire the text in Koine Greek, or the common language of the people. As a result, the most literal translation would be "sons." While "children" would be a correct interpretation, the goal of a translation is not to interpret, but to translate. And while I realize that it is not always possible to separate the two, translation, not interpretation, must always be the goal of the committee. Some very respectable scholars were a part of the TNIV, but as bright as they are, the Holy Spirit does not need their help.

Proponents of gender neutral translations argue that gender in the original Hebrew and Greek often has no bearing on the meaning. However, gender did have meaning to the audiences for which these texts were initially written. For example, Hebrews 2:10 says in the NIV that Jesus will bring "many sons to glory." The TNIV says that he brings "many sons and daughters to glory." No manuscripts whatsoever contain the conjunction "and" or the second direct object "daughters." All of this is assumed by the fact that the plural form of "huios" is used. But the noun means "son" and it is significant because in Biblical days, the SON received the inheritance. Of course we know that this verse applies to both men and women. All believers are heirs of salvation through Christ. (Galatians 3:28) But the masculine is important because it has theological connotations that are lost by translating the text as gender neutral.

All of the above could be ignored as troublesome, but irrelevant were it not for one thing: The publisher of the NIV has decided that from now on, the TNIV will be referred to as the NIV. When someone orders a NIV, they will no longer be getting the gender accurate translation they think they are getting. They will be getting the gender inclusive translation instead. This means that when someone asks me what translation I preach from and I say "NIV," the NIV they buy at the local Christian bookstore will not be the same one I am using, even though it has the same name!

For this reason, I will soon be switching to another translation in my preaching ministry. It's too bad, because I have memorized a lot of Scripture in the original NIV. I'll always know those verses and quote those verses in the NIV. This also means that when I preach, I'll have to read verses I would normally just quote if I intend to put them up on the screen. It will also mean that we must change out all of our pulpit Bibles in the Sanctuary, which is also too bad because they are only five years old and were given by a man in memory of his recently deceased wife. But the integrity of the Word of God cannot be compromised.

And while I'm at it, some will, no doubt, use this episode as an excuse as to why we should have never stopped using the King James Version. However, new translations are always needed because, as I indicated above, God chose to give us the Word of God in the common language of the people. I have previously asked my KJV only friends "Why is it that God originally wanted His Word read and heard in common language but now wants it read and heard in a classical language that requires much effort for some to comprehend?" I also ask, "When exactly did this change from common to classical take place?" If you are going to argue for KJV only, you must answer these questions. However, I have yet to hear even a remotely plausible reply. Newer translations are needed, not only because all languages constantly change, but also because many of us live in a part of the country where those who hear us proclaim the Word of God do not have English as their mother tongue.

I will probably be making a switch to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. We'll see.

A great article on the controversy can be found HERE.