The biennial WELS synod convention is taking place this week in Watertown, Wisconsin. We're happy to report that President Mark Schroeder has been re-elected (on the first ballot) by an "overwhelming majority."(Apparently his reputation was not harmed too much by the fact that we dubbed him an honorary Intrepid Lutheran several months ago!)
Our prayers ascend to our gracious God for the faithful leadership and the solid confessional Lutheran witness of our synod president. I can't remember a WELS president ever stressing our confessional Lutheran identity as much as President Schroeder has. His re-election is a good sign.
5 comments:
I was very pleased when an overwhelming majority of the delegates re-elected our President for another term without the need for a run-off election. Pastor Schroeder's presidential report was also very timely and Confessionally-minded, as was, incidentally, the essayist that followed. I am very heartened by what I saw take place at today's Convention. I am curious to see how the delegates will respond to the items on tomorrow's agenda.
Did any other non-delegates watch the live stream last night of the discussion about the NIV?
Did anyone else notice the smugness of the translation committee? There was a very strong and detectable "cat-who-swallowed-the-canary" ambiance. Was this merely the typical smarminess exhibited by those who imagine themselves Ivory Tower Intellectuals, or was it something else?
I was told in no uncertain terms by a member of the Seminary Faculty (and Translation Committee) that my faith was not strong or mature enough to understand why the NIV 2011 was okay. So I have to ask if that individual and/or the other members of the translation committee operated with that Opinion about the delegates-at-large last night. There's evidence they do, (if body language isn't enough for you) and here's why I think so:
Nearly everyone I saw expressed the opinion that #1 we should use another translation because of the NIV's particular flaws or that #2 we should spend much more time studying it. The response given by the Translation Committee never actually recognized these objections at the root level.
Instead, their defense of the Translation was always of two varieties, both shifting the focus: #1 There's no perfect translation or #2 Everyone is being negative. No one is looking at the positive.
I didn't think it was fair for the Translation Committee to act as though none of the delegates understood that every translation has its faults, and that the NIV isn't all bad. I'll wager not one person in that room would've argued that. So while the delegates were asking reasonable questions the members of the Translation committee mostly answered with a parry-thrust to a Straw man. Since one may trust that the Translation Committee are all men of at least average intelligence, and that each, more than likely, possesses the wit to cogently argue cogent points, one must ask "Why did they, whenever a good question was asked, shift their defense to point which weren't even at question? Do they (like at least one of their number) believe that NIV detractors are small-minded and small-faithed? Does this group of men believe they know better than us?" Often times when men with advanced degrees and highly specialized knowledge tell us they know better, we take their word for it.
Though the delegates all seem to be against the immediate acceptance of the NIV 2011 (or the acceptance of it at all), they will absolutely vote to ratify that translation. Men in positions of power use the tactics described above because they work--which says nothing bad about the delegates, except that they, like everybody is susceptible to psychological warfare. You just wait and see. It'll be voted through with very little dissent.
And my opinion is that individual WELS congregations should be extremely worried about their own ability to self-identify with Confessional Orthodoxy when linked to a Synod who has accepted a Bible translated with all the trappings of Post Modernism.
Tim Meyers
Tim,
You're not supposed to post on blogs about this lest you influence others, remember? Note, I'm dripping with sarcasm.
Christian Schulz
I watched the live stream last night, and was completely unconvinced by the arguments of the translation committee. I was very impressed by the delegates' questions and the concerns they expressed. DP Seifert and Pr. Naumann very capably expressed their disagreement with the conclusions of the translation committee.
I plead with the delegates not to approve the NIV 2011, and not to allow any translation to be approved without the vote of the synod in convention.
Tim, I observed the very same attitude and false lines of argumentation that you observed. I was so bothered by the lack of information and answers provided by the committee that I stayed up until 3:00 am reading and studying everything I could about the NNIV. I am now more convinced than ever that the NNIV is a grave danger to our synod and must be categorically rejected.
Mr. Adam Peeler
Post a Comment
Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.
Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile.