Which Denomination Am I?

Growing up, I always described myself as a bit of a theological/denominational "mutt." I was raised in Charismatic and Assemblies of God churches when I was young, attended a Baptist church throughout middle and high school, was part of a non-denominational Charismatic church plant in late high school, bounced around way too much in college (charismatic Baptist, Vineyard, Presbyterian, non-denominational, Baptist mega-church, to name a few of the places I landed!), attended a Methodist church while working on my master's, and now am part of a Sovereign Grace church (essentially, Reformed Charismatic). So I was interested to take this quiz  to determine my denominational leanings. The results:

(100%) 1: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic)

(83%) 2: Presbyterian/Reformed

(82%) 3: Congregational/United Church of Christ

(60%) 4: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England

(60%) 5: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth

(54%) 6: Eastern Orthodox

(51%) 7: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene

(51%) 8: Lutheran

(51%) 9: Seventh-Day Adventist

(50%) 10: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God

(47%) 11: Church of Christ/Campbellite

(36%) 12: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.)

(31%) 13: Roman Catholic

While I wasn't surprised to be in the neighborhood of "Reformed Baptist," I was surprised to be pegged at 100%! I was also surprised to see "Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God" so far down the list, as these are my roots, and still a significant influence in my life.

What about you? Where do you land? Take the quiz and let me know!

Why I am Not a Christian Hedonist

In this post, I explore some of the conclusions I've come to regarding John Piper's philosophy of Christian Hedonism. But before doing so, I want to head off any misinterpretation by stating my profound respect for Piper. In so many ways he is an excellent example of a pastor-scholar, and I have personally benefited greatly from his teaching and writing.

That said, I struggle at times with his writings on Christian Hedonism (and not because of the common "we're-called-to-deny-not-gratify" objection, which I don't think is a valid critique of his position). In short, Christian Hedonism is the philosophy that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." It is rooted in the notion that we are not only allowed, but in fact called, to enjoy God, and that doing so in no way detracts from His glory or makes Him a means to an end. So far so good.

In this regard, Piper's works like "Desiring God" [1] and "When I Don't Desire God" [2] are very helpful for spurring the believer on to greater joy in God and to a passion for his glory. Christian Hedonism is wonderful news when seen as a promise ("Yes - you CAN find ultimate joy in God rather than sin, and his glory and your joy are not at odds"). However, when pushed beyond a simple promise of joy in God, I've found that Christian Hedonism strikes me as very bad news - as threat, rather than promise.

Whether Piper intends it or not (and I am confident he does not intend it), it can be a subtle move from "You can (and ought to) enjoy God" to "You'd better start enjoying God - or else!". This can shift our focus from "all that God is for us in Christ" (the true source of our joy in Him), to what I do for God (i.e., enjoying Him sufficiently as a condition of my salvation). None other than C. S. Lewis, one of the inspirations for Piper's Christian Hedonism, noted that "the surest way of spoiling a pleasure [is] to start examining your satisfaction" (p. 218, Surprised By Joy ) [3].

I think the challenges of consistent Christian Hedonism in the Christian life come to forefront in Piper's book "Future Grace" [4]. In particular, in Ch. 15, his discussion of the nature of saving faith seems to me (despite all Piper's protestations to the contrary) to confuse the fruits of faith with the nature of faith. He states:

"I don't want to say merely that faith in promises produces 'confidence, joy and hope,' but that an essential element in the faith itself is confidence and joy and hope[...] The essence of saving faith is a spiritual apprehension or tasting of spiritual beauty, which is delight... [In sum,] if we do not taste the beauty of Christ in his promises as delightful, or as satisfying, we do not yet believe in a saving, transforming way" (pp. 205-206, emphasis original).

My beef with this is the focus on the fruit of faith (confidence, joy, hope, delight, and satisfaction) as faith itself. I understand Piper's position that saving faith is a gift of God (a point with which I agree). And I also appreciate his desire to guard against "cheap grace" and "easy-believism." But I'm not convinced that Scripture presents faith primarily as a satisfaction in God (particularly satisfaction as interpreted through Piper's strongly emotional lens). Rather, it seems to me that faith consist most fundamentally in trusting God to keep His promises, irrespective of our ability to contribute anything (including our affections and delight) (e.g., Rom. 4:16-25, Heb. 11).

If we were to adopt Piper's conceptualization of faith as delight, then it seems we'd need to place an asterisk next to many of the key statements about faith or belief (Greek πίστις) in Scripture. For example:

Mark 1:15:
¹⁵ “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news*!”
*i.e., "Repent and be satisfied with all the God is for you in Christ!"

Acts 16:31:

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

They replied, “Believe* in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

* i.e., "Delight in the Lord Jesus"

The difficulties with the faith-as-delight view are especially striking in Paul's epistles:

Galatians 2:16

¹⁶ know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith* in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in* Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in* Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

*i.e., treasuring/treasured

Philippians 3:9

⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith* in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith*.

* i.e., joy

At this point, I ask: If God, the Author and Lord of language, who had any words at His disposal to express the truths of salvation, intended to drive home the point Piper is making, why did He choose to express it primarily in terms of faith, rather than of delight? Under Piper's definition, it appears we are not justified by faith, but by satisfaction/delight/treasuring/joy. I know that Piper would not deny justification by faith - in fact, he is one of the most ardent defenders of the doctrine in our day. However, I worry that the above formulation of faith ends up denying justification by faith indirectly, by redefining faith as something other than trusting God's promises. If he objects to N.T. Wright's supposed view of justification "on the basis of/according to works," how does Piper avoid asserting a justification on the basis of/according to affections?

I realize this all sounds very critical of Christian Hedonism, and I don't intend any disrespect to Piper, a far greater man than I am. I just wonder how it is that we're supposed to be continually delighting in and treasuring God when, under Piper's system, I'm continually in danger of proving to have never been converted if I don't continually keep up a sufficient level of delight in God (How much in order to know I'm saved? Just a little more than I've got now?). If I wake up on the wrong side of the bed and don't feel that "zip" in my morning devotion, this may signal that I'm reprobate. And am I supposed to enjoy relating to the God who is about to damn me to hell for my lack of enjoyment of Him? I don't see how!

In short, if I must believe in order to be saved, and I must delight in order to "really" believe, how can I delight until I know that Christ has actually accomplished salvation for me? It seems little grounds for joy to say, "Only when you get adequately satisfied in this Christ who might not yet be your Savior, will he prove to be your Savior - so get on with delighting, you could-be-saint!"

On the other hand, when I contemplate the objective work of Christ on my behalf (rather than my subjective work of delighting in Him), I find this brings real joy! I think I'll go read some Luther...

__________________________________________________

[1] Piper, J. (1986). Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Sisters, OR: Multnomah.

[2] Piper, J. (2004). When I don't desire God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

[3] Lewis, C. S. (1955). Surprised by joy. New York: Harvest.

[4] Piper, J. (1995). Future grace. Sisters, OR: Multnohmah.

Zach Nielsen & Crossway Want to Give You Books!

In the midst of your Christmas shopping, check this out. Zach Nielsen's blog is giving away a stash of great books from Crossway this month. Click on over and sign up - they'd make great Christmas presents (to yourself or someone else)!

What Theologian Am I?

I recently took this test (available here) to tell me which theologian I am most like. Apparently, I'm 87% Anselmian. If I'm going to be likened to a medieval theologian, I can't complain too much about this one.

But 53% Schleiermacher? Ouch! That's still too much for me. And I didn't know I was such a Barthian. Interesting... But at least I'm furthest from Tillich. This makes me happy :)

You Scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm

87%

Karl Barth

80%

John Calvin

80%

Jonathan Edwards

67%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

53%

Charles Finney

40%

Martin Luther

40%

Augustine

33%

Jürgen Moltmann

20%

Paul Tillich

20%

Pray for Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is cutting his book tour short in order to begin chemotherapy for apparent esophageal cancer. Whatever you think of the man, his ideas, and his public persona, pray that the Lord would heal him and reveal Himself to him during this time.

Link

Mark Noll on How His Mind Has Changed

From the Christian Century, Mark Noll provides an autobiographical retrospective of his faith journey. While today it's common to read "how my mind has changed" narratives in terms of leaving behind old dogmas, Noll writes beautifully about his journey deeper into the Gospel truths he has always believed:

To the best that I can discern, "how my mind has changed" goes something like this: the basic dogmas of Nicene Christianity have become more important—they now seem truer—than in the hour I first believed. From that hour I knew that Christianity was deep and that it was beautiful. Now I believe that the depth is unfathomable and the beauty supernal beyond telling.
In an age of "growth," "journey," and "theological pilgrimage" that often signify nothing more than trendy heterodox reinterpretation of The Faith, Noll's example points the way toward the kind of growth God calls us to.

HT: Trevin Wax

Scot McKnight on the Demise of the Quest for the Historical Jesus

In the latest issue of Christianity Today, Scot McKnight has an outstanding overview of the current state of historical Jesus research - pretty much dead. And to McKnight, that's a good thing. After reading McKnight, I think you'll concur.

A sample:

As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification.

In the final analysis, argues McKnight, we must answer this question:

Whose Jesus will we trust? Will it be that of the evangelists and the apostles? Will it be that of the church—the creedal, orthodox Jesus? Will it be the latest proposal from a brilliant historian? Or will it be our own consensus based on modern-day historical scholarship? 

Indeed, whose Jesus will we trust? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, be sure to check out the rejoinders from N.T. Wright, Craig Keener, and Darrell Bock on the issue.

I Don't Get the Hatred for Rick Warren

No need to elaborate. The title is all I have to say.

Exegesis, or "Extra Jesus"?

My wife once related to me a humorous story from her seminary days. It seems a certain young woman at her seminary, on fire for the Lord but new to the seminary environment and unfamiliar with theological vocabulary, overheard some students discussing their "exegesis" class. Only she didn't hear "exegesis" - she heard it as "extra-Jesus". The gall of those students!, she thought, Thinking they have extra Jesus just because they take this class!


The story is humorous, and yet it's tragic. It's tragic because I identify with it. I have a tendency to believe that engaging in spiritual disciplines like prayer and Bible reading in some way earns me more of God's favor. Yes, I tend to believe that exegesis earns me extra Jesus. In the name of "discipline" or "passionate pursuit of God," we can become legalists, basing our acceptance with God on our ability to engage in rigorous spiritual activity. We can turn the means of grace into the basis of grace.

As a new husband and full-time graduate student, I simply don't have the free time I once had to pursue spiritual disciplines to the degree I would like. It's easy to spend hours a day studying Scripture when you're a single guy with few commitments in your life. Those in such situations can easily acquire an aura of spiritual superiority (What, brother?!? Thou only spent an hour in the Word today? Such sloth! I shall intercede for thee). But what of the graduate student cramming for finals? What of the single parent, working two jobs and raising kids? What do you do when real life intrudes on your bourgeois theological leisure time?

I'm not suggesting that time in the Word, in prayer, etc. is unimportant - in fact, the busier we are, the more important it is. But what I am suggesting is that we (I) must not let the necessity of these things become a legalistic burden. If, in the midst of studying for a midterm, I miss a meal, my stomach will let me know. But I don't condemn myself for missing a meal - rather, I run to the fridge, where the food is! In the same way, if in the midst of our busy lives, we find that we don't have all the time we would like for spiritual disciplines, rather than beating ourselves up, we should appreciate the hunger that we do feel. Hunger is good - it points us to food! If we miss a devotion, a prayer time, a Bible study, we'll feel a gnawing hunger. And that hunger isn't meant to drive us from the Bread of Life - it's meant to drive us to Him!

Yes, pursue spiritual growth. Yes, seek God with all your heart. Yes, become a student of the Word. But don't fall for the lie that exegesis equals "extra Jesus."

Theological Perfectionism and Translation Wars

Lee Irons, whose blog The Upper Register I've recently discovered, has the following to say in his post, "The Problems of Theological Perfectionism." The whole post is worth reading, but I'm particularly struck by his comments on Bible translation debates:

There are many other examples which show the problems with theological perfectionism.

English versions of the Bible. It's easy to nit-pick at a translation of a particular verse. It's fun to mock someone else's Bible. Some scholars have even written whole books against particular versions, as if to save people from the damaging effects of a bad translation. But would to God that more evangelicals did in fact read and study their TNIVs or their New Living Translations. It would do more good than all the self-help books being cranked out by the evangelical publishing companies. Just as the Spirit can bring people to saving faith through imperfect presentations of the gospel, so he can use flawed translations of the Bible to help us grow in spiritual maturity.

Would that all God's people read more of their "paraphrased" Messages and "wooden" NASBs and "archaic" KJVs and "liberal" NRSVs and "Calvinist" ESVs and "feminist" TNIVs!

God states, "Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" (Jer. 23:29). 

Would that God would break our rocky hearts of pride with the hammer of His Word (in whatever imperfect translation we read it)!

Save a Life - Chip Stam

For those of you who know or are familiar with Chip Stam, professor in the School of Church Worship and Music at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (and music minister at my wife's former church in Louisville, Clifton Baptist), he needs help. Click below to find out how you can help.

Save a Life

Posted using ShareThis

D'Souza, Lewis and the Proper Role of Apologetics

What is the appropriate role of apologetics? Dinesh D'Souza, in a Christianity Today interview about his latest book Life After Death: The Evidence, provides a great reply to the question:

What is the role of [your] kind of apologetics in convincing someone to become a Christian?

D'Souza replies:

Apologetics is a very powerful tool, but it's ultimately janitorial. Many people encounter obstacles to the faith. Think of the Christian, for example, who loses a relative and is assailed by the question, Why did God allow that? Even the believer can be haunted by difficulties that get in the way of building a relationship with God.

Apologetics can come in and help to make important distinctions and clarify some of the difficulties. You are doing no more than clearing away debris that blocks the door to faith, and ultimately it is God's love that has to work its way into a heart. Conversion ultimately comes from that; apologetics only clears the driveway.

This is a good reminder that while apologetics can be helpful to faith, they are never the object or ground of faith. That belongs only to Jesus Christ.

C.S. Lewis warns about the danger of our faith becoming overly dependent on apologetic arguments, rather than on Christ himself:

I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist…. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality – from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself. ("Christian Apologetics" in God in the Dock, p. 103)

Adrian Warnock Wants It All!

I stumbled across a link to an old post from British blogger-extraordinaire, Adrian Warnock. In the post, entitled "I Don't Want Balance, I Want It All!", Warnock states that he's tired of merely seeking to be "balanced" spiritually - he asks, "Why can't we have it all?"

In our desire for respectability and "balance" (from the point of view of our respective groups), we have a tendency to set up oppositions between Word, Spirit, doctrinal fidelity, passionate encounters with Jesus, outreach to the world, inreach to the Church, social action, faithful gospel preaching, strategic leadership, missional zeal, heartfelt worship, rigorous study, and Book-of-Acts signs and wonders. But why?

Why pick and choose?

Why can't we have it all?

Review of Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted"

Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary has a fantastic new review of Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman's latest popular attempt to discredit the Christian faith he rejected. One repeatedly gets the sense in Ehrman's writing that he has not so much rejected fundamentalism as simply shifted from a Christian form of fundamentalism to an agnostic form of it.

Kruger notes,

Ehrman's inability to accept the natural verbal flexibility in ancient literature suggests that he (ironically) still may be reading the gospels in the same way he did in his fundamentalist days, placing modern expectations of precision and rigidness on the gospel texts that they were not meant to bear.

In a review of Ehrman's previous book, Misquoting Jesus, Daniel Wallace noted,

It seems that Bart’s black and white mentality as a fundamentalist has hardly been affected as he slogged through the years and trials of life and learning, even when he came out on the other side of the theological spectrum. He still sees things without sufficient nuancing, he overstates his case, and he is entrenched in the security that his own views are right.

Wallace has noted that most theological liberals started out as fundamentalists, and simply shifted their views from a Christian fundamentalism to a liberal (or atheistic) fundamentalism. Ehrman is a good example of someone whose "black and white mentality", particularly in regard to the phenomenon of Scripture, led to an either-or dichotomy between "Bible-as-a-magic-book" and "Bible-as-a-fraud." He serves as a sobering reminder of the need to think Biblically about the Bible, deriving our doctrine of Scripture from Scripture rather than unexamined pre-assumptions about what the nature of the Bible must be. I'm afraid Ehrman has essentially built his career on the claim, "The Bible isn't the way I think it ought to be - therefore, it's a fraud."

Gluttony As an Appetite Suppressant

In Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin, Cornelius Plantinga highlights the corruption that sin unleashes in our lives. One of the primary ways in which sin corrupts, he notes, is by dulling our appetite for the things we should desire. He writes

...Self-indulgence tends to suppress gratitude; self-discipline tends to generate it. That is why gluttony is a deadly sin: oddly, it is an appetite suppressant. The reason is that a person's appetites are linked: full stomachs and jaded palates take the edge from our hunger and thirst for justice. And they spoil the appetite for God" (p. 35)*.

So, what are you glutting yourself on today?


* Plantinga, C. (1995). Not the way it's supposed to be: A breviary of sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's

Nevertheless, Love Your Church

Ray Ortlund, pastor of Emmanuel Church in Nashville, TN, had a great post yesterday, "My Church or the Kingdom?". In it, Ortlund addresses the common notion that building up God's kingdom is more important than building up one's own church. He asks:

Suppose I said, "My passion isn't to build up my marriage. My passion is for Marriage. I want the institution of Marriage to be revered again. I'll work for that. I'll pray for that. I'll sacrifice for that. But don't expect me to hunker down in the humble daily realities of building a great marriage with my wife Jani. I'm aiming at something grander."

We would rightly call such a view of marriage absurd. How can one have a passion for Marriage without having a passion for one's own, particular marriage?

Likewise, Ortlund points out the absurdity of working for "The Church" without working for one's own, local church. How often do we say things like, "It's not about going to church, it's about being the Church"? How often do we strive for "global justice" while neglecting the pursuit of justice in our own churches, home and neighborhoods? How often do we rail against "false doctrine in the Church" while making little effort to build our own churches up through solid, Biblical doctrine?

I'm reminded of Paul's admonition to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22-33. In it, Paul gives undoubtedly the most exalted, transcendant view of marriage ever written, probing the unsearchable mystery of marriage as a cosmic portrait of Christ and the Church. Lest his readers be tempted to then say, "Ah! So what really matters is not marriage itself, but that greater spiritual reality that it signifies", Paul pointedly returns to the necessity of loving one's own spouse. He says,

"This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph. 5:32-33, NKJV, emphasis added).

Paul knows our temptation to focus on abstract spirtitual principles and neglect our day-to-day duties. His point is that, if we are ever to glorify Christ and the Church in our marriages, we must start by individually, daily, loving our spouses. Only then we ever hope to reflect the greater image that marriage points to.

I believe Paul would say the same to us today in relation to our churches. "Yes," he'd say, "by all means be Kingdom-minded. By all means, seek to build up the universal Church. Nevertheless, let each one of your in particular love your flawed, human, local church. Only then can you ever hope to truly build up the Church and the Kingdom."

Perspectives on Translation: Ryken vs. Fee & Strauss

Regardless of your opinion on Bible translations, it's important to educated yourself about the issues involved in faithfully translating the Biblical messages from the original languages into English (or any other language). That's why it's imperative to listen to people on both sides of the "Formal vs. Functional Equivalent" debate. Too many unfortunate misunderstandings arise when individuals either blindly latch onto formal equivalence translations as the most "literal" (and therefore most "accurate"), or consider only contemporary relevance and side with functional equivalence in contrast to (supposedly) "wooden" and "archaic" formal translations.

As with most complex issues, the truth is somewhere in between. While volumes have been written on translation issues, two good (and free!) introductions to the arguments for Formal Equivalence and Functional Equivalence are, respectively, The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken (advocates formal translation) and It's All Greek To Me by Gordon Fee and Mark Strauss (advocates functional and mediating translations). I won't hide the fact that I'm more persuaded by Fee and Stuart's arguments, but Ryken's book does highlight some issues worth considering.

I should also note that Leland Ryken has a new book coming out this week, Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach. The Crossway blog has a series of interviews with him about the book and translation theory in general.

NIV Study Bible in Renaissance Leather - Cheap!

Those of you who follow me here know that I'm a TNIV man, but I have a great deal of love for the good ol' NIV too. And when it comes to study Bibles, the NIV Study Bible has been the evangelical gold standard for years. Right now, CBD is offering a compact NIV Study Bible in Renaissance Fine Leather for the insanely-good price of $34.99. That's about what you'd normally pay for the paperback edition. My main Bible is a TNIV Reference Bible in Renaissance Leather, and I can tell you it is some of the nicest, most supple leather you'll find in a Bible.

Of course, the NIV is due for an update in 2011. But if you can't wait, don't be afraid to jump on this deal. You won't regret it.

Thoughts on NIV2011

When I first saw that TNIV was being discontinued and replaced by an updated NIV in 2011, I was disappointed. However, upon thinking more about it, I'll admit I'm cautiously excited about the whole development. While I lament the failure of the TNIV to ever really take off, I think this presents a wonderful opportunity for the Committe on Bible Translation and the church at large. Here are my thoughts:

1) The unfortunate saga of the TNIV has certainly been educational for anyone working in Bible translation. It seems the NIVI/TNIV translators genuinely underestimated the negative response to the "gender accurate" translation policy. A few factors probably contributed to this:

Bible translators spend their days immersed in the study of linguistics. They deal day in and day out with the complexities of language and the challenges of transferring meaning from one language to another. Linguistics and translation theory are second nature to them.

On the other hand, the majority of pastors, let alone laypeople, have neither the time nor the training to think on this level consistently about nuances of language. They justifiably rely on English translations to understand the Bible. When a new translation, no matter how linguistically warranted, sounds "different from how I've always read it", it's understandable that many readers could get nervous.

Translators need to be constantly aware not only of the linguistic merits of their translations, but also of how changes to familiar renderings are likely to be received by everyday readers (yes, I realize the irony, in that this was the very concern that drove the production of the TNIV in the first place). Now, I for one think that the gender policy followed by the TNIV is appropriate. However, many readers (and a good number of pastors and scholars) did not. In retrospect, perhaps the CBT and Zondervan should have done more to anticipate the negative response that followed, and worked more to educate pastors, scholars and everyday readers about the rationale for the changes before moving ahead with the translation.

2) While many have interpreted the today's announcement as a concession that the TNIV and its translation philosophy were a mistake in themselves, I don't think that's at all what Zondervan or the CBT meant.

Let's analyze the thrust of the statement. According to Biblica CEO Keith Danby:

"The first mistake was the NIVi. The second was freezing the NIV. The third was the process of handling the TNIV."

First, the release of the NIVi was a mistake, according to Danby. That may well be - I'm not really competent to comment on it. I haven't read much from the NIVi, though I admit to being less than comfortable with some statements in its preface. It seems that the NIVi was what really touched off the firestorm (for example, see Grudem & Poythress' The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words). However, whatever one's view of the NIVi, it was not the TNIV.

Second, according to Danby, the freezing of the NIV was a mistake. To which I give a hearty amen! Zondervan and the IBS (now Biblica) should never have allowed the NIV to become forever stuck in 1997 (actually, 1984, the date of its last previous revision). It's now been 25 years since last NIV revision, and a lot of developments have occurred in the areas of Biblical languages and archaelogy. The NIV needed revision in 1997, and it needs it even more twelve years later.

Third, notice what Danby did not say. He did not say that the TNIV was a mistake. He said that "the process of handling the TNIV" was a mistake. And on any account, mistakes were made. It could have been introduced more tactfully. It could have been presented as a more accurate Bible for all demographics (along with the inclusion of more "grown up" bindings), rather than being marketed primarily as a niche Bible for the 18-34 year old crowd. Zondervan could have ceased pushing the NIV and marketed the TNIV as its replacement. In hindsight, I'm sure that Zondervan and Biblica would say things could have been handled more skillfully in regard to rolling out the TNIV alongside the "frozen" NIV and in regard to the ill-fated negotiations with the Colorado Springs folks (though they felt, it would seem justifiably, backed into a corner).

3) The Committee on Bible Translation has its work cut out for it. They have to walk a razor's edge in updating the NIV. Douglas Moo, head of the CBT, implied that the 2011 NIV would probably incorporate around 90% of the NIV and 95% of the TNIV. On one hand, if the updated NIV rolls back all the gender-related changes introduced in the TNIV, the anti-TNIV crowd will be happy, but many TNIV supporters will likely feel betrayed and jump ship (presumably to the NLT or NRSV). Not only that, but such a move would call into question the need for an update at all. Personally, I doubt this will be the direction taken by the CBT.

On the other hand, if the 2011 NIV is seen by TNIV opponents as keeping too closely to the TNIV in regard to gendered language, it risks tipping the balance once and for all against not only the NIV, but against the concept of dynamic equivalence as a whole. The anti-DE voices have been swelling for a while now (witness the popularity of John Piper's "Get a Bible with All the Words in It" video and Leeland Ryken's The Word of God in English), and combined with a growing informal ESV-onlyism, could signal the death of the legitimacy of dynamic equivalence in evangelical circles.

Regardless of your stand on translation philosophy, the CBT deserves our prayers.

4) Whether you loved the TNIV or loathed it, give the new NIV a fighting chance! While there's lots of speculation about just what the updated edition will look like, the truth is nobody will really know until 2011. TNIV-lovers need to be willing to give the new NIV a fair reading, without reading it through a lens of assumed misogyny in the wording. TNIV opponents need to be willing to give it a fair reading as well, without imposing their feelings or objections about the TNIV onto this new work.

While he and I would hold different views on the TNIV, Al Mohler provided a generous response to the new development, noting:

"In the end, the update of the NIV to be released in 2011 will have to stand on its own... When released, the updated NIV will deserve and require the attentive study and review of all committed evangelicals."

In summary, I'm cautiously optimistic that the 2011 NIV will incorporate the best of the TNIV, but be more palatable to those who were never going to embrace the TNIV. Let's pray so.

R.I.P., TNIV

Well, well. What a disheartening start to my day. Zondervan/Biblica announced today that they will soon cease production and marketing of the TNIV. An updated NIV is slated for 2011. While I'm disappointed, I can't say I'm shocked. Here's wishing the updated NIV team (NNIV?) all the best.