At the family reunion yesterday I was telling my mom that I had recently bought myself an HCSB – and got a blank stare. She had never even heard of it. So I tried to explain it in terms she should understand. Mom is a believer and does quite a bit of Bible study. Last time I talked to her about that she was using the NIV Study Bible, so I was telling her how the HCSB is similar to the NASB in accuracy, but very easy to read like the NIV. Then I realized she wasn’t familiar with the NASB, either.
At that point our discussion was interrupted, and we moved on to other subjects. But it got me thinking later on how so many of us just don’t see much beyond our own denominations, or even our local churches. Instead of using the NASB as an example, since my mom is also a long-time Methodist, I should have used the NRSV. She would have understood that.
Everybody knows the old KJV, but beyond that things tend to fragment. As a United Methodist we know the old RSV, and the New RSV (NRSV). The few UMs who actually get into Bible study generally are familiar with the NIV, at least if we lean towards the evangelical side of things. (Otherwise it’s all NRSV.) Some are aware of the NLT and the Life Application Study Bible, but I have never run into a UM who uses it as their main Bible that I am aware of. Some remember the old, gray paperback Good News for Modern Man with the line drawings. Beyond that, talk about different translations and you’re likely to be met with blank stares.
So what are the other Bible publishers to do? Zondervan choked on the TNIV for a while, but now that their throat has cleared up some, it appears their customer base may be more accepting of that “controversial” Bible, though I’d be willing to bet that a lot of that base has actually left for less-controversial pastures, i.e., Crossway’s ESV and the HCSB “Baptist Bible”. I think that the big “Z” will survive this, and even thrive. Crossway seems to be making the right moves, too. The SBC and B&H Publishing have that “Baptist Bible” perception to overcome, but as I previously stated, the HCSB is an excellent translation; it’s still a very new translation, and people are not even aware of its existence yet in many quarters. From what I’ve read, even many Baptist churches are slow to make the change over to the HCSB, but I can’t see that continuing for long. The HCSB is just too good to go unnoticed.
The Southern Baptist Sunday School curriculum, as I understand, now uses the HCSB exclusively, or almost so, and people are bound to notice. That should be a big plus. But in the UMC I don’t expect it will ever make too big of a dent. The powers-that-be will continue to push the NRSV as the unofficial “official” Bible. But I am a layman, and I don’t have to answer to those “powers”. What I can do is use my HCSB, or TNIV, and do my best to see that people in the UMC are aware of them. It could make a difference.
The Sundry Times 
Clarification: The SBC publishing house, Lifeway, uses the HCSB as their main translation for adult Sunday School materials (I haven’t seen the youth materials), but they also offer some of the materials in a King James, as well. Our church uses the NKJV, and all the pew Bibles are NKJV.
From what I understand, even that small concession – from KJV to NKJV – was a fierce battle. There is still a llarge portion of our congregation who feel that the only true Bible is the King James.
I don’t know of anyone, personally, who uses the HCSB as their main Bible. They may just still be in the closet. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s interesting to me, Mike, since I’m used to the more uniform use of the NRSV in the UMC. I know there’s some variation, but I don’t think it’s anything like what you see in the SBC.
I have seen the KJV-ONLY websites and what they say about other translations. It really surprises me how anti-NKJV they are, and the NIV is even more of a tool of the devil! (I wonder if they have noticed the target has moved!)
There are more HCSB fans surfacing around here, but the blogosphere isn’t exactly the real world. Outside of the SBC and the internet, almost nobody is even aware of the HCSB’s existence.
LikeLike
Yes… my understanding is that SBC underwrote the HCSB translation in order to have a Bible that they could use without paying licensing fees (for the NIV, if I recall correctly). They’ve ironically created a very good conservative Bible that almost no one uses outside of reading Lifeway’s Sunday School materials. In my opinion, the HCSB better meets the ESV’s translation goals than the ESV does.
However, as much as it pains me to say, in the end that will be the issue, if any does, that causes me to move on to another translation. I truly believe that no good can come of having the Church (universal, or at least Western Protestant) so divided on something as central as our Biblical text. I would rather use a text that I disagree with personally if it unites the majority of Christians than use a text that creates further division among the body.
To paraphrase from Romans: “So then, we must pursue what promotes peace and what builds up one another. Do not tear down God’s work because of translation issues. God’s word is good and inspired in all translations, but it is wrong for you to cause others to stumble over their Bibles by what you read. It is a noble thing not to use masculine generics, literal idioms, or anything else that makes other Christians stumble.” [Romans 14:19-21]
LikeLike
You make an intrigueing point, ElShaddai. Do you think it will ever come to that? I’m sure it can and will on a small scale, but overall I think the Church will remain as divided as ever over translation issues.
People will be offended on both sides. That’s why some of us love the TNIV, and others revile it.
One of the things I like about the HCSB is that it seems to be more middle-of-the-road, not strongly one way or the other. I think it could be a very good translation that all sides could find acceptable. It could be a good compromise.
But what would it take to bring us to that point?
(BTW, that was a very interesting translation you quoted that Romans passage from! 😉 )
LikeLike
I am not as optimistic as you, Gary. I think that one of the outcomes of living in an individualistic, post-Christian culture (that is, a culture whose primary norms and ideology are no longer based on Biblical values but on individual security and satisfaction) is that the Church has to place a far greater emphasis on internal unity in the face of a different cultural world-view.
However, we’ve created such vast schisms inside Christianity through relatively trivial denominational differences such as infant baptism, gender roles, leadership hierarchies, etc. that we don’t have the discipline and focus to “conform no longer to the pattern of this world” and be transformed “to know what is good, acceptable and perfect.” Instead, we’ve applied our individualistic cultural view to our denominational religious organizations and focused on what makes us different and unique, rather than on the common glue that binds us together.
I grew up outside of denominational party lines and don’t fully understand what the differences are and why they’re so important. For example, you’re a member of UMC… what would it take for the UMC and SBC to merge into one “denomination” and fully embrace a common set of values? It seems like there is so much energy spent on the minutia of religious tradition and so little energy spent on building relationship with Christ.
We ought to be living in one Kingdom, not 50 denominational states. Yet that Kingdom seems to be in a War Between the States. As desperate as it seems, I wonder if we’re in an inevitable death spiral toward increasing fragmentation. I don’t know that this Church can be unified by human hands and I’m definitely not looking for a modern day Rome. I wonder if the Church has to be broken apart and re-forged into New Jerusalem. A modern day Flood if you will. And who among us is willing to abandon this culture’s worldviews and get on the ark?
Ok. Breathe. A common Bible… it’s my opinion that translation issues cannot reflect doctrinal differences. Once you introduce ideology into translation, whether in the text itself or in the supporting apparatus, e.g. preface text, supporting websites, etc., you invite division. That’s why the HCSB is evidently so worrisome to many; because, unlike the TNIV or ESV as far as I know, it is controlled by a denomination. Have we started down the death spiral, uh… road, of having different Bible translations for each denomination?
LikeLike
ElShaddai,
I didn’t realize I was being optimistic! 😉
“…what would it take for the UMC and SBC to merge into one “denomination” and fully embrace a common set of values?”
Boy, what a question!
There has been talk of the UMC becoming a part of the Anglican Communion, or even becoming an order within the RCC! I don’t think either will ever happen.
Part of the problem is that the UMC is such a big tent; we encompass people of vastly differing opinions. The leadership, particularly at the highest levels, is very liberal. But a fair percentage of the clergy is more conservative, and much of the laity is more conservative still.
The UMC as it is today would never be able to merge with the SBC. But with a possible split, I can easily see a more conservative Methodist church seriously consider such a merge — but it would take a lot of compromise. I think the idea of association is more realistic.
On a deeper level I have seen tremendous unity between believers of all sorts of different denominations, and notice I said believers. Those of us who are “in Christ” are really very unified. We easily overlook our ecclesiastical and theological differences to work together for the Lord and His people. I think those denominational labels tend to hinder more than help.
A common Bible. It really frustrates me that the HCSB is perceived by some to be controlled by a denomination. If that means the HCSB is not an option for a common Bible, what would be? The TNIV? It’s acceptable to me, but not to many others. The ESV? I don’t like it, neither do many others, though some love it. The NRSV? The liberals love it; many conservatives find it acceptable, but I think it would need to be reworked to make it good enough to be a common Bible. The ISV? I think it’s still too much of an unknown.
We have unity among the true people of God, but I think the lack of a common Bible does tend to hinder further unity. Maybe it will happen someday. I don’t know.
LikeLike
The United Methodist Publishing House is quietly working on their own translation
LikeLike
I appreciate your patience with my rants.
On a deeper level I have seen tremendous unity between believers of all sorts of different denominations, and notice I said believers. Those of us who are “in Christ” are really very unified. We easily overlook our ecclesiastical and theological differences to work together for the Lord and His people. I think those denominational labels tend to hinder more than help.
Yes. I was reading your latest post with a great deal of interest, because I feel much the same, that labels become a convenient excuse to put people in buckets rather than engage them in honest conversation. When push comes to shove, I do hope that you’re right in that our underlying connection through Christ is stronger than our denominational differences. And I hope that leaders who emphasize those differences realize that they will be held accountable just as teachers are held to a higher standard of judgment.
Regarding the HCSB: there will be some, like us, who want to interact with the text purely for what it is and not be concerned about the SBC connection. Others will find it an unsurmountable hurdle. And that’s kind of where my previous paraphrase was headed… do we sacrifice an excellent translation for the weaknesses of others?
It would be interesting to tackle the various complaints about the key translations and see what are purely translation issues and what issues are being forced from an ideological perspective. And if the latter are unavoidable, is there a common ground translation that is acceptable? I don’t know if there’s been a recent Bible translation effort made with the express purpose of being acceptable to all major Christian groups.
Anonymous said…
“The United Methodist Publishing House is quietly working on their own translation”
Sigh.
LikeLike
Anonymous said…
The United Methodist Publishing House is quietly working on their own translation
Huh?
That’s news to me! Where did you find that info?
I’d be very curious to see that Bible. Who knows, the liberals seem to have done all right in spite of themselves with the NRSV.
LikeLike
Regarding the HCSB: there will be some, like us, who want to interact with the text purely for what it is and not be concerned about the SBC connection. Others will find it an unsurmountable hurdle.
I think that’s sad. But I suppose it’s impossible to avoid.
I don’t know if there’s been a recent Bible translation effort made with the express purpose of being acceptable to all major Christian groups.
Well, don’t most of them claim they are trying to do that? Obviously, in reality they haven’t succeeded. But don’t they all try to make a translation that will be acceptable to all Christian groups or denominations? Or do they have target groups?
Looking at candidates to be a common Bible, I think we’d have to include the NET Bible, and maybe even the NASB 95 update. I suppose there are problems to be surmounted with any translation, but those should be considered.
LikeLike
Gary, you’ve mentioned the use of the NRSV in the UMC several times now. The NRSV is one of the few Bible translations that preserves non-Christological readings in the Old Testament, e.g. not using “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14. Is that something officially in line with the UMC or have you adopted the NRSV text despite that “liberal” reading?
But don’t they all try to make a translation that will be acceptable to all Christian groups or denominations? Or do they have target groups?
Yes, I suppose you’re right, though examples like the ESV and HCSB seem more targeted to specific groups with their sponsors’ adoption of the Colorado Springs Guidelines. For example, Focus on the Family is going to recommend the ESV over the TNIV because the language of the ESV is consistent with their “traditional family” ideology.
I’ve kicked off a project on my blog to look at the objections to various translations and try to determine what, if any, common ground exists. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it.
LikeLike
ElShaddai, the NRSV is the unofficial official Bible of the UMC. It’s not really official, but the churches are almost strong-armed to adopt it, and of course it’s used almost exclusively in our seminaries. I understand it’s not really official there, either, but anybody using anything else is looked down upon.
I used to refues to even read out of it, because I saw it as a liberal Bible that was forced on our churches. I’ve recently discovered that it isn’t really a liberal Bible; it’s really pretty good. But I also think that there are other translations that are much better, like the HCSB, TNIV, and maybe the NLTse. I still don’t use the NRSV. I don’t refuse to use it any more, I’d just rather use something else.
LikeLike
ElShaddai: We ought to be living in one Kingdom, not 50 denominational states. Yet that Kingdom seems to be in a War Between the States.
Indeed we ought to be living in one Kingdom. And certainly the different denominations should not be at war with one another. But that doesn’t mean that we have to tear down all internal boundaries. Just as the USA is made up of different states with separate state governments and different traditions but (more or less) united in purpose on important matters, so the Kingdom of God has room for different groups with separate structures and different traditions, even different Bible translations, as long as all are united in the basic purposes of spreading the gospel and glorifying God. So, I think we should look not so much for visible unity as for working together with mutual acceptance of our diversity.
LikeLike
Well said, Peter. I let the argument boil over and found myself in a wilderness of words. My apologies to all and especially to Gary for taking more than my share of space.
LikeLike
ElShaddai, no need to apologize. My blog is your blog…sort of. 😉 It seems the discussion is usually at least as important as the original post. This really isn’t all that different from a discussion board, you know?
Peter, I think your post is profound.
I think we should look not so much for visible unity as for working together with mutual acceptance of our diversity.
Yes! It seems to me somebody wrote something about the body being made up of different members with different functions. Some guy named Saul, or Paul, I think.
LikeLike