2013 WELS Convention and the Endorsement of NIV 2011.

The following discussion was held on the Facebook Wall of Daniel Baker -- who was a delegate to this year's WELS Convention -- and is reproduced here with his permission. There are several points in this discussion worth consideration, and worth responding to -- sooner being better than later.

1. Even though the 2011 Synod Convention called for the TEC to educate the laity so that they would be prepared for the task of choosing a translation, can anyone say there was much evidence that such had happened? Did the delegates display evidence suggesting they were prepared to thoughtfully deliberate the issues?
2. What does it really mean to decide that "All translations are equally deficient, so we will use them all"...?
3. What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, so it is a disparagement of God's Word to cast doubt on any of them"...?
4. What does it really mean when it is said that "All translations are equally God's Word, isn't it wonderful that we have God's Word in so many forms"...?
5. How crippling is the division in our Synod?
6. Why is it that the "New Method Lutherans," in addition to harangue-ing everyone to become relevant by absorbing pop-culture into the church, also seem to be the one's pushing post-Modern linguistics?
   
   
7. What do you think about endorsing a given translation (NKJV was suggested below), and mounting an education campaign targeted at the laity, with the specific purpose of warning about the dangers of "Dynamic Equivalence" and "Functional Equivalence" and identifying their roots in post-Modern philosophy, while building up the virtues of Formal and Optimal Equivalence?
8. Knowing that the CoP and the entire faculties of MLC and WLS, along with what appears to be a majority of WELS Administrators, are on the side of the "New Method Lutherans," what would you think of such and effort knowing that it would come from outside those sources, and probably rely on scholarship from outside WELS?

Be assured, the "New Method Lutherans" see the endorsement of NIV 2011 alongside all other translation as a big opportunity to drive forward with the next big NIV release. They'll be better organized next time. And they are always better funded.

What other options or considerations may there be?

---

Daniel Baker

5 hours ago near New Ulm, MN

Here's a summary of the WELS Convention's translation issue:

1. We approved all translations of Holy Scripture for use in our publications (the "eclectic approach").
2. We gave NPH sole discretion to decide what translations to use.
3. An overwhelming majority (over 3/4ths) voted against a Confessional Lutheran translation.

Some general observations:

• Opposition to a "Confessional Lutheran Translation" seemed to be overwhelming. There were even a number of speakers and a proposed amendment to strike "Confessional Lutheran" from the Resolution.
• The outgoing editor of NPH was on the TFC, which supported and recommended NNIV.
• NNIV is clearly on the list of NPH options, and prior to an amendment was the first on a short list of three options for their use.
• Sem. Profs made it clear that the result of the "eclectic approach" would be settling on just one translation - by "herd" decision, as one pastor and televangelist delegate put it.

As such, it seems clear to me that we are far from out of the NNIV woods.

1Like ·  · Share

• 
  Bryan Lidtke, Paul Rydecki, Jeffery Clark and 5 others like this.
  
  
• 

  Angela Gawel Al's not here to translate anymore. I think I get the gist but sometime I will have to have someone explain it:) just one question ... What would Alfred think of the outcome?

  5 hours ago via mobile · Like
• 

  Daniel Baker He would probably have mixed feelings like the rest of us.

  5 hours ago · Like
• 

  Paul Rydecki More like, you are deep in the heart of the NNIV forest.

  5 hours ago · Like · 5
• 

  Intrepid Lutherans Been thinking about this for several minutes after Committee 22 completed (and I posted this, below, too). Initially hopeful after last night's vote on Resolution 1 from Committee 21, the defeat of Resolution 1 from Committee 22 makes Resolution 1 of Committee 21 merely an acknowledgement of the fact that (a) all translations are equally deficient, and (b) we're really okay with that. No one could bring themselves to reject, say, the Watchtower as a translation to be avoided, the Douay-Rheims as a translation to be avoided, or even the "LOL-cat" translation of the Bible as a translation to be avoided. In the words of Seminary Presidents Wendland and Cherney, "They are all equally God's Word! Isn't it a wonderful thing that we have God's Word in so many forms?"
  
  It is apparent to me, however, that there are really two, and only two, reasons the WELS faculties opposed this -- and neither has anything to do with money or time. 
  
  
  

  (1) There is a stark division in WELS regarding linguistic philosophy, which impacts our fundamental understanding of the nature and function of language, and consequently, the nature of that which was Breathed by God, and thus also, the appropriate Christian principles for translating God's Word into English or any other language. This division is exposed now, yet we are led to believe that we can live with this division as if it does not impact our working together. Yet, a WELS translation effort will fail to progress beyond merely starting on this very point -- and that failure WILL EXPOSE HOW TRULY CRIPPLING THIS DIVISION IS.
  
  (2) Even though we most certainly do have the *technical skill* to translate the Bible, we simply do not have the *literary talent* to produce an excellent translation. Like it or not, the KJV is *still* the standard of literary excellence, and they know that the product of any translation effort we would undertake would be compared to the KJV, and failing to measure up, would simply land somewhere in the plethora of *equally flat and deficient* translations we already have to choose from, none of which really distinguish themselves. A general rejection of our translation as an excellent one, on such grounds, would likely represent a general indictment of our school system, which is so highly respected.

  
  

  That's my take on this. -DL
  
  
  

  
  

  Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

  lolcatbible.com
  

  Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly. This is the lolcat Bible Translat...See More