 |
| The NNIV is the #1 choice of synodical maggots. |
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2015
WELS Makes it Official: All WELS congregations shall use NIV2011
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2015/05/wels-makes-it-official-all-wels.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IntrepidLutherans+%28Intrepid+Lutherans%29
As pointed out by commenters earlier this week, in our post Washington Post Editorial: “The trick isn’t to make church cool; it’s to keep worship weird.”, by Dr. Jackson late yesterday on his blog, Ichabod, the Glory has Departed, and to me personally by concerned WELS laymen, the WELS Hymnal Project has standardized the new WELS hymnal on the NIV 2011. The Spring 2015 Director’s Update of the WELS Hymnal Project, issued May 10, 2015, by Project Director Michael Schultz, states this directly in the section entitled “Scripture Committee (SC)” – a committee of the Project chaired by Rev. Jonathan Schroeder – in the following words:
- [T]he Scripture Committee drafted a translation rubric that was approved at the first meeting of the XC [“Translation Committee” – which is also the “Scripture Committee” according to this update] in September of 2013. Their rubric followed the eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 synod convention. The primary working translation of the project is NIV2011, with NIV1984 serving as the backup choice where there are weaknesses or deficiencies that require changes. Since the time that resolution was approved, it has been established that NIV1984 won’t be available as a backup choice, so the committee will be bringing an updated recommendation for a backup translation... The SC reviewed all scripture references or strong scriptural allusions in the CW line of products (not including psalms). Of just under 200 instances, it identified four instances where it recommended replacing NIV2011 with NIV1984. Similarly, the PC has compared both of the NIV translations of all CW/NSS/CWOS/CWS psalmody, marking those places where changes may be necessary.
 |
| The approval of all translations was a smokescreen to approve the NNIV. Schroeder's complete lack of spine was evident. |
But secondly, “eclectic” apparently requires that, if the balance is cited entirely from NIV2011, only four out of 200 “scriptural allusions” contained in a Synod publication need to be cited from NIV1984. Let’s see... if only (4 ÷ 200) x 100 =2% of all “scriptural allusions” come from a non-NIV2011 source, even the same non-NIV2011 source, well then, the “threshold of eclecticism” has been reached, and thus also full compliance with the resolutions of Synod in Convention. Yes. Two Percent is, without a doubt, manifest eclecticism according to WELS publishers... And it is very consistent with the “eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 Synod convention” – which turned out to be only the first step toward eliminating choices other than NIV2011 altogether. Literally. Five percent is the general threshold of statistical significance. Two percent, however, isn’t statistically significant at all. In fact, it might just as well be zero.
Thus, for those congregations choosing to use the new hymnal (apparently estimated at around 95% of WELS congregations, according to the Update), there will be no way to avoid using “Today’s” NIV2011 as a basis of their worship, even if they want to.
To be fair, the Update didn’t exactly say that only four verses would be sourced from NIV1984 instead of NIV2011, it said that of the 200 verses used in the current hymnal, NIV2011 did such an unacceptable job translating four of them, that, out of the gate, they recommended a different translation be used in those specific cases. They are apparently ambivalent about the rest, so, perhaps, of the remaining 196 verses, maybe they will cite 50% from NIV1984 and 50% from NIV2011. Again, given that NIV1984 and NIV2011 are “92% identical,” how eclectic would a 50/50 split be, in reality?
 |
It's already been done... |
- [T]his review has included looking at all the differences between NIV2011 and NIV1984. Beyond that, the thinking of the Psalmody Committee has been shaped to the point that the members have come to a general consensus as far as their approach is concerned... The PC’s consensus is to [retain] the musically stronger refrains and tones and “[freshen] up” (tweaking or replacing) refrains and tones that have perhaps become tired or haven’t gained much traction.
- Something that has not been determined is how much of the scriptures will actually be published in connection with the hymnal project. If a complete Psalter is published... then all the psalms would be in play.
 |
| Northworsten publishing house - all NNiv too. |
5 COMMENTS:
Just as misleading is the suggestion that this new hymnal might not include any Psalms. The update seems pretty clear that there will be Psalms in the new hymnal: "A similar number of pages for psalmody is envisioned in the next pew edition" (first line of p.6). They seem to be considering, in addition to the selected Psalms that will be printed in the pew edition of the hymnal, publishing a complete Psalter with every verse of all 150 Psalms. I guess I view that as a good thing.
Much has been made here at IL about the inroads that Evangelical worship is making in our circles. Many of us here decry that, as do I. The guys working on this new hymnal are on our side. I cannot repeat that strongly enough. They are on our side of this discussion. Tossing out misleading attacks and inaccurate accusations will not provide them with the encouragement they could use.
Rik Krahn
Also a serious question which I do not understand and for which I have not really heard a good explanation. Why is the NKJV always left out of the conversation when our WELS committee's discuss Bible Versions?
Lee Liermann
The advocates of the 2011 NIV were supposed to be on our side too, whichever side our side is. So when I hear that the hymnal committee is on our side, I have to wonder which side our side is.
And like Mr. Liermann, I also wonder why the NKJV was never in the conversation. Our congregation did a more in depth comparison of Bible translations then any other congregation that I am aware of, and where there were difference between the NIV1984 and the 2011 NIV, NKJV was quite similar to the NIV1984 in most of the cases.
Vernon
I have been a constant provider of feedback to the Hymnal Committee, (whether they like it or not.), usually sending them a comment whenever they put out an update. I have even received a reply or two to some of my comments. I am hopefully that the new hymnal will be an improvement but - I have serious doubts that is possible when the preferred translation will come from the NIV2011.
Does this not point to the flaw in the last Synod Convention vote not selecting a version at all? That vote allowed publishing and the various Synod committees to default to the NIV2011 - as we have seen. Perhaps it is not as widespread as I perceive but I have seen the NIV2011 used in religion class materials (Christ Light), a Children's Christmas Service and who knows what else where it is not noticed. So how do you plan to keep the NIV2011 from becoming the normative for your congregation when the materials coming out of NPH are using the NIV2011?
Yes the NIV1984 probably is the material many younger WELS members are used to and many older members have probably become used to it as well (though I still catch myself wanting to say things like "meet, right and salutatory so to do." Back to the point - do you really think it would be that great of a culture shock to use something other than the NIV2011 for the new Hymnal? I don't think it would be that great a shock and much more comforting if replaced with a trustworthy translation?
Personally I use the KJV and the NKJV and have my children do their memory work using one of those two versions. Why has the NKJV never been seriously considered as the translation of record for the Synod? It would seem to bridge the gap between the older generations and the younger generations, is trustworthy and more accurate.
Lee Liermann
The short answer as to why the NKJV wasn't seriously considered (I'll let Pastor Krahn give the long one, if he wishes) is that the Seminary faculty's current thinking (and thus the thinking of most WELS pastors younger than a certain age) is that any translation based upon the Textus Receptus (e.g. the KJV, NKJV, Lutherbibel) is inferior to a translation based upon modern critical scholarship (e.g. the NIV84, NIV2011, HCSB).
Given that the WELS quite happily used the KJV for decades (not to mention the Lutherbibel line, based like the KJV on the Textus Receptus, in German worship for a century or more), the view that translations in this line are so inherently flawed as to not even be considered is obviously fairly new to our circles. Judging by the vintage of the WELS pastors who hold these views most strongly, my estimate is that this new emphasis on the inferiority of TR-based translations was in full swing by the 1980s, probably either concurrent with or in support of the effort to ditch the KJV for the original NIV.