The truth of the matter is this: some complaining complementarians won.
I don’t buy the following for one minute:
“Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” said Zondervan president Moe Girkins. full post…
- Q: What kind of division was the TNIV causing in the evangelical Christian community?
- A: well, it separated some complaining complementarians from the rest ( a Don Carson wasn’t complaining).
And How is this NIV 2011 going to handle 1 Timothy 2:12? Because we all know that the TNIV’s handling of 1 Timothy 2:12 was part of the incessant complaining by some complementarians.
If those complaining complementarians were like me, we wouldn’t need a 2011 NIV.
Honestly I think zondervan never wanted a seperate Niv and they’ve been looking for an opportunity to change the Tniv to the Niv and what better time to do so than when they’re revising the Tniv. I think this is just marketting spin. They’re not getting rid of the Tniv; they’re getting rid of the original Niv and its first revision the Tniv because it’s being further revised. Naming the first niv revision the tniv was a reaction to criticism and never meant to be permanent. Now they have their reason to phase it out. That’s my take now.
Bryan L
Bryan L – if you’re correct, then that was a smart move by Zondervan.
At any rate, I believe they have enough feedback from the TNIV to make this 2011 NIV a success.
Kevin – from a marketing standpoint, I think Zondervan made the right decision. TNIV was pretty damage goods from the outset.
It seemed to me what happened to the TNIV is analagous to what is happening in the health care debate with the town halls where opponents, for various reasons, foment unprincipled opposition. Biblica bowed to this pressur for financial reasons.
So you end up with a bible which is supported by the best evangelical scholarship to date, the TNIV, which is opposed for bogus reasons by a version which is a lightly revised RSV which was the pariah of a former generation of conservative protestants. A case of bible fascism and hypocrisy. It’s laughable!
Biblica bowed to this pressure for financial reasons.
Scott- that’s it.
So you end up with a bible which is supported by the best evangelical scholarship to date, the TNIV, which is opposed for bogus reasons by a version which is a lightly revised RSV which was the pariah of a former generation of conservative protestants. A case of bible fascism and hypocrisy. It’s laughable!
The whole thing is indeed laughable.
Gary, to nit-pick even more, there was another edition in between, the 1997 (?) NIV-I, which was published here in the UK but never in the USA.
There’s also the NIVr.
Bryan L, When was that? Was it a legitimate effort at a revision?
It’s a version of the NIV for children
TC, well at least Zondervan has made a choice and we no longer have to keep wondering why they were not backing the TNIV.
I do hope, and trust that the NIV 2011 will be a revision of the TNIV and make it better.
Robert – now we know, but they have a lot of pleasing to do with this 2011 revision.
Those who attacked the TNIV will still be around in 2011.
TC,
I know, just read my latest post on Grudem, he is already starting off with his off-the-cuff comments. I am really starting to dislike his attitude – so much so that I need to pray to see if I will continue using his Systematic Theology at our church. Just really bothered by his statements.
Robert, I just left a comment on your blog. If I were you, I would look pass this flaw of his and continue with his Theology. It’s exceptional, esp. in the area of the Spiritual gifts.
TC, I know and I should reconsider.
But I think that he goes to far, he seems like an extremist on various positions, women in ministry, his condemnation of the TNIV, and now his recent comments. His SysTheo book overall is good and fairly balanced. But to be honest I am not sure I want to keep presenting him as someone I endorse.
Zondervan does seek to make some profit, right? If the TNIV isn’t selling, shelve it.
I cannot see why anyone would consider a book which contains this statement to be Christian. Grudem writes about Eph. 5:21,
“Therefore the idea of mutual submission, (in the sense ‘everyone should be subject to everyone’) is not affirmed in Eph. 5:21. … Both the context and the meaning of hupotasso require that in Eph. 5:21 it means:
“Those who are under authority should be subject to others among you who have authority over them.”
In fact, this is in direct contradiction to Calvin, who wrote about this verse,
“21. Submit yourselves. God has bound us so strongly to each other, that no man ought to endeavor to avoid subjection; and where love reigns, mutual services will be rendered. I do not except even kings and governors, whose very authority is held for the service of the community. It is highly proper that all should be exhorted to be subject to each other in their turn.
But as nothing is more irksome to the mind of man than this mutual subjection, he directs us to the fear of Christ, who alone can subdue our fierceness, that we may not refuse the yoke, and can humble our pride, that we may not be ashamed of serving our neighbors. It does not much affect the sense, whether we interpret the fear of Christ, passively, thus, — let us submit to our neighbors, because we fear Christ; or actively, — let us submit to them, because the minds of all godly persons ought to be influenced by such fear under the reign of Christ. Some Greek manuscripts read, “the fear of God.” The change may have been introduced by some person, who thought that the other phrase, the fear of Christ, though by far the most appropriate, sounded a little harsh.”
In fact, this is only one of the times that Grudem basically takes Calvin on. Grudem has rejected many of the premises of Reformation Christianity. Its too bad that people are so ill informed.
Sue,
Wayne Grudem anti-rhetoric towards the TNIV is legendary around blogosphere.
Doug K, I’m with you.
Douglas,
Egalitarianism deals with the equality of men and women as equally image bearing. According to the patriarchs, bearing authority was a basic component of bearing God’s image. It makes us responsible, accountable and required to provide for those in our care. We all, men and women have to care for our families, relatives, and neighbours, and our fellow human beings. We have to care for our selves in order to do this. There is no difference based on gender.
Complementarians deny the doctrine of mutual submission, mutual responsibility, mutual authority, taught throughout the gospels, and epistles. A basic and fundamental doctrine is denied. Take out the law “to love your neighbour as yourself” and there is not much Christianity left.
Interestingly enough, the Reformers, the peasants, Americans, slaves, and many other groups of people have refused to go on living in subjection and no one has claimed that these people are no longer Christians.
TC,
It is much more fundamental than that. Bearing authority is part of our humanity. It is being denied.
TC,
It is much more fundamental than that. Bearing authority is part of our humanity. It is being denied.
Sue,
What’s going to happen to 1 Timothy 2:12 in 2011? Any predictions?
That too is an authority matter.
TC,
First, I want to know if you don’t think that Calvin’s point about Eph. 5:21 is a loss? Don’t you think that Christianity needs concepts like mutual submission as taught by Calvin, or freedom from slavery.
Frankly, I lived in some ways as a slave and it stinks. That’s all I can say. But I don’t think I’ll recover fully from the trauma.
I read complementarianism as saying that the ideal relationship is one of authority and submission and we should all be either the upper or the under person or both, in this kind of relationship, and some people are only the under people – that’s women.
No one can make men kind masters, any more than anyone could force all slave owners to be kind. Sure there are kind men, and there were just as many mind slave owners.
But the main point is that Grudem suppresses and denies everything in Calvin’s writing that has any value.
Sue,
I believe Calvin is spot on. How else should we interpret the injunction to submit to one another? So I agree with Calvin.
Thank you, TC. I did not say, as Douglas implied. that complementarians are not Christians. I said that those who deny the teaching of Calvin with regard to Eph. 5:21 are denying Christianity.
There are quite a few complementarians who support the teaching of mutual submission. Grudem does too, as long as it is understood that the husband is like the Father who never submits and the wife is like the Son who always submits.
But, this is only one of many denials of fundamental Christian doctrine in Grudem’s Sytematic Theology.
If people read this book purely for a doctrine of the Spirit, I think a better witness if Fee, who does not stifle the gifts of the Spirit in half the human race.
Sue,
You quite familiar with my take on the whole thing. Yes, Fee is to be taken seriously on the Spirit.
If Zondervan translates 1 Tim. 2:12 “to have authority” in the main text, I am never spending a dime of my money on this revised NIV. I’ll stock up on TNIVs and live on those until the Second Coming.
The smarmy comments from these complementarian leaders are irksome. They need wedgies, all of them.
You’ll have to come up my way, then and hang out. You can find my email in my profile.
You’ll have to come up my way, then and hang out. You can find my email in my profile.
Oops, this was in response to Robert Jiminez, who want to mee Fee.
Bridget,
I would love to meet you too but we would have to refrain from actually pulling pranks like that in real life.
Not really. But I live a stone’s throw from Regent. And his church is just around the corner. You could hang out at Regent.
Well Sue, if you’re ever in the Chicago area, look me up. I’ll grab some male friends, we can visit a hard complementarian church and have the men walk into Sunday school classes being taught by women. How’s that for a prank to pull?
Bridget, we’ll have to wait and see. But I predict something is going to be done with the verse.
Pingback: Zondervan will discontinue putting out new products with the TNIV | Scripture Zealot
Hi Bridget,
If I am ever down your way, I will look you up.
Bryan, that’s a positive take on this whole fiasco. I’m still reeling from Zondervan’s decision but you have a really good point here. If you see the TNIV as a first edition of the new NIV, then that makes me feel a little better.
Bryan, I believe the TNIV was actually the second revision. The NIV was first published as a complete Bible in 1978, then revised in 1984, and then came the TNIV.
(Sorry to nit-pick.
)
Thanks. I got you.
I fail to see how egalitarianism = Christianity, any more than complementarianism = Christianity…
Sue,
I used Grudem’s books because of the overall theological topics in one volume. I realized that I did not agree with him on various positions, including his anti-women in ministry position.
However, I felt that his text book would be a good way to critique his position regarding women in ministry, and other positions that I disagree with him. My thought was that our students would learn better and give them an opportunity to learn first hand what they teach, and help them be better prepared on how to deal with this subject.
But I think I have reached the place where I don’t want to support nor appear to endorse his views any longer. I hope that helps clarify why I have used in his book in the past.
I think Calvin’s words very likely sum up well why Grudem takes the position he does.
But to be honest I am not sure I want to keep presenting him as someone I endorse.
Robert, if it comes to that, I totally understand and respect your decision.
Jason, that’s the bottom line. Another reason why you’re right, Zondervan had a list of explanations for certain decisions made in the TNIV. Are those explanations no longer valid?
$$$…
Sue, Gordon Fee is my all time favorite instructor, I love reading his books, my hopes and prayers are to someday meet him.
But if you are denying Christianity, then you’re not a Christian. Maybe I’m splitting grammatical hairs here, but that’s how it seems to me at least…
Sue, you know Dr. Fee? Wow, that is so cool I really would love to meet him, I need to seriously take you up on your offer.
I would predict, and suggest, something like “to take authority over a man”, slightly toning down TNIV’s “to assume authority over a man”, with “have authority” in a footnote as in TNIV. This could be read either way and, as clearly weaker than KJV, cuts the ground from under Grudem.
Sorry but I still fail to see how not being an egaliarian makes you worthy of the judgement of God, any more than being a member of CBMW gives you a green card to the Kingdom. I thought faith in Christ’s atoning work is what saves…
Peter, not a bad rendering. How about footnoting “to assume authority over a man?”