Further thoughts on the WELS translation decision

I wonder whether the move to allow NPH to use an eclectic approach will simply result as a backdoor into using the NIV2011. And isn’t it totally unfair to NPH that the broader synod would cop out of making a decision here by simply placing it on NPH? So instead of the decision of the synod being criticized, the decisions made by NPH would be¬†criticized.

And why can’t we make a decision? From the perspective of a layman, it sounds like the decision comes down to the ESV, NIV2011, and HCSB. NKJV has also been put forward as an option, although it seems to have been eliminated out of hand for some reason. The HCSB seems to have been eliminated, leaving the NIV2011 and the ESV. The NIV2011 has baggage, whether fairly or unfairly, and an adoption of it will likely be seen as evidence that the WELS is a pietistic, heterodox synod. Our synod president has expressed similar concerns. So we are left with the ESV, which comes with the full resources of CPH behind it. Why can’t we say that this is the best option available to us at this time and place our support behind its adoption?

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>