Round and round and round it goes.
Where it'll stop, who really knows?
The strictures of gender-neutrality placed on the translation of the NIV 2011 superimpose a feminist worldview on the entire text of the Bible. But this is old news. The next controversial phase of attacks on God's Word is to superimpose a homosexual worldview on the Bible. How long will it be before confessional Lutherans join this movement? From the Product Description on Amazon:
A Gay Bible
The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.
Homosexuality in The Bible
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!
The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.
Who is Queen James?
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so...
[bold emphasis is mine]
Cultural Change and the Church
As Koehler pointed out to us in defending the Historical Disciplines (see the Introduction to my Conference paper, Why is this Happening to Us?), the only way to tell that change has occurred and is impacting the Church is to examine the past:
- The truth must remain unchanged but the method must vary in order always to remain the spontaneous expression of the truth. Today we are confronted by new situations... They can be covered with one term, the intrusion of worldly ways into the church... It won’t do to go into isolation and pretend that problems do not exist... But neither is anything accomplished by making compromises and bringing the world into the church... What counts is that we actually stay with the truth in doctrine and conduct and actually shut our church against worldliness. What is the remedy?... In our case it is the historical studies that indicate that a change is taking place, and it is highly important that we do not remain inactive and let it dominate us so that our church may not be harmed by it.
[Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pp. 436 - 437]
As I stated in my last post, How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?, it used to be that among confessional Lutherans, "all doctrine was taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only," – a grammatical definition – but now, "all doctrine is taken only from "clear statements" of Scripture" – a relative definition. It may seem like this sort of thing happens by accident. And maybe it does. But the strategic use of "ambiguity" is also a weapon, used by man to wage war against the clarity of the Scriptures. In fact, I concluded a previous post entitled, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates..., which characterized the decline of sound doctrine in the ELCA as a decline in the perceived "clarity" of the Scriptures, with the phrase, "Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny," and used that phrase as the title of two successive posts:
- “Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One
“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two
Shall confessional Lutherans follow them?