Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Darrell128@aol.com
Subject: NR 97082: Zondervan, IBS Win 1st Round in Ethics Charges Against Zondervan
NR #1997-082: Zondervan, International Bible Society Win First Round in
Ethics Charges Against World Magazine Over Inclusive Language Bible
When North Carolina-based World magazine accused the publishers of the New
International Version of the Bible of planning a revision using "gender
inclusive language" -- avoiding the use of generic male nouns and pronouns
except when referring to God -- the article set off an explosion among
evangelical leaders loyal to the current text of the best-selling Bible in
the North American evangelical world. Stung by criticism, the International
Bible Society announced May 27 that it would "forego all plans to develop a
revised edition of the NIV." Now the magazine that broke the story faces
ethics charges from Zondervan Publishing House in Grand Rapids, which earns
almost half of its $100 million annual sales from the NIV, and International
Bible Society which holds the NIV copyright. Both organizations filed
complaints with the Evangelical Press Association, a trade association
numbering 284 evangelical periodicals. An ad hoc ethics committee of the EPA
issued a July 1 report that World had violated the EPA code of ethics. EPA
board president David Neff, executive editor of Christianity Today, called a
special board meeting for July 22 to deal with the report and decide what to
do about World magazine. In its response to the charges, World warned of
serious consequences to the freedom of the evangelical press. "The members of
the ethics committee have before them a historic decision: they have the
power to promote independent Christian journalism or to stifle it," responded
World. "That these charges are even seriously being entertained by the EPA
creates a chilling effect against reports that may not please powerful
organizations."
NR #1997-082: For Immediate Release
Zondervan, International Bible Society Win First Round in Ethics Charges
Against World Magazine Over Inclusive Language Bible
* Evangelical Press Association Calls Special Meeting to Deal with Ethics
Committee Report Charging Magazine with Unethical Conduct
by Darrell Todd Maurina, Press Officer
United Reformed News Service
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (July 12, 1997) URNS -- When North Carolina-based World
magazine accused the publishers of the New International Version of the Bible
of planning a revision using "gender inclusive language" -- avoiding the use
of generic male nouns and pronouns except when referring to God -- the
article set off an explosion among evangelical leaders loyal to the current
text of the best-selling Bible in the North American evangelical world. Stung
by criticism, the International Bible Society announced May 27 that it would
"forego all plans to develop a revised edition of the NIV."
The International Bible Society licenses its product to Zondervan as the
exclusive publisher of the NIV in North America; a British publisher, Hodder
& Stoughten, holds similar exclusive publishing rights in Europe.
Making use of work done by the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation, the
British publisher issued a 1995 revision of the NIV that used inclusive
language and contained a preface saying "it is often appropriate to mute the
patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive
language." In the same year, Zondervan published a simplified-language Bible
for children and adults learning to read English that uses inclusive language
but contains no announcement to that effect and is not marketed as an
inclusive edition.
Now the magazine that broke the story faces ethics charges from Zondervan
Publishing House in Grand Rapids, which earns almost half of its $100 million
annual sales from the NIV, and International Bible Society which holds the
NIV copyright.
Both organizations filed complaints with the Evangelical Press Association,
a trade association numbering 284 evangelical periodicals. An ad hoc ethics
committee of the EPA issued a July 1 report that World had violated the EPA
code of ethics. EPA board president David Neff, executive editor of Christiani
ty Today, called a special board meeting for July 22 to deal with the report
and decide what to do about World magazine.
"World seems to be unconscious of its duty to protect the good names and
reputations of Zondervan Publishing House, International Bible Society, and
Committee on Bible Translation," wrote Zondervan in its complaint, alleging
that World employs "distortion and sensationalizing," fails to treat opposing
views "honestly and fairly," and "erroneously attempts to convey a conspiracy
of evangelical Bible translation with radical social feminism."
Almost immediately, the magazine cried "foul."
In its response to the charges, World warned of serious consequences to the
freedom of the evangelical press. "The members of the ethics committee have
before them a historic decision: they have the power to promote independent
Christian journalism or to stifle it," responded World. "That these charges
are even seriously being entertained by the EPA creates a chilling effect
against reports that may not please powerful organizations."
The three-member ad hoc ethics committee appointed to deal with the charges
didn't buy World's argument. On July 1, the committee issued a three-page
report declaring that the magazine violated the Evangelical Press
Association's code of ethics. The committee urged World "to publish a full
account, with equal prominence, of the position taken by Zondervan and IBS in
the interests of the public that World purports to serve." If adopted by the
full EPA board, the report would represent a severe rebuke to a magazine
published by a former EPA president.
Neff's predecessor as EPA board president was World magazine publisher Joel
Belz. Belz blasted the ethics committee for its own conduct, warning that
"particularly in light of the fact that we are being criticized for failure
to contact one subject of our story in one of our stories, it seems
preposterous that an investigative committee would fail to interview the
organization supposedly at the center of the question being discussed."
EPA executive director Ron Wilson declined comment on the specifics of the
case but noted that the board would deal only with the ethics charges and not
the underlying issue of inclusive language.
"EPA deals only with the journalistic issue and it's separate," said Wilson.
"We're also more concerned with the unity and peace in the body than with who
is right and who is wrong. We obviously have a procedure we follow through,
but our primary concern is bringing peace to the body."
Wilson said Belz agreed with him, but a call from Belz indicated otherwise.
"I think it's almost certainly one of the first times a press association
has tried to stifle free expression," said Belz. "In the end you have to come
back to truthfulness, and with respect to truthfulness we think the report
speaks for itself."
Belz issued a strongly critical four-page letter to all members of the EPA
board urging rejection of the ethics committee report. Belz made clear that Wo
rld was willing to correct factual mistakes and did not want "to be
hard-hearted and impervious to correction by others, for the Bible speaks
plainly about people with such a spirit."
"We do believe, however, that in this instance powerful voices have sought
to silence the truth," wrote Belz. "If EPA's board fails in this case
unambiguously and rapidly to defend the telling of the truth, but instead
publicly penalizes the truth-tellers, the soul of the organization will have
been irreparably ripped from its body."
While Belz blasted the report, Zondervan corporate affairs director Jonathan
Petersen said he was pleased by the report and hoped it would be adopted by
the Evangelical Press Association board. "We felt we had been unfairly
treated," said Petersen. "We've been impacted by a number of comments by
retailers, pastors, and general consumers who I think have misunderstood the
whole matter and have been critical of Zondervan and IBS because of that
misunderstanding."
Role of the NIV in Evangelical Circles
The New International Version currently holds 45% of the market share in the
Christian book industry and surpassed sales of the King James Version a
decade ago, according to Zondervan.
The NIV concept originated with an overture to Synod 1956 of the Christian
Reformed Church from First CRC of Seattle, then pastored by Rev. Peter DeJong
who later became editor of the conservative CRC periodical Outlook. Seattle
First CRC member Howard Long convinced his church -- and later the Christian
Reformed synod -- that the two then-published conservative Bible translations
"have become antiquated so that they are no longer written in the common
language of the people," noted that the Revised Standard Version had failed
to win the approval of the CRC synod and other conservative denominations,
and argued that the Christian Reformed Church should therefore "endeavor to
join with other conservative churches in sponsoring or facilitating the early
production of a faithful translation of the Scriptures in the common language
of the American people."
The Christian Reformed synod referred the matter to the Old and New
Testament faculties of the denomination's Calvin Theological Seminary in
Grand Rapids; eventually the CRC partnered with the National Association of
Evangelicals in the project and accepted the financial help of what is now
the International Bible Society. Following a 1965 conference at the CRC's
Trinity Christian College in the Chicago suburbs, the joint NAE-CRC committee
handed the project over to an independent and self-perpetuating 15-member
Committee on Bible Translation on the ground that Bible translations should
be done apart from any particular denomination or ecumenical organization.
Bible translators came from a variety of backgrounds -- Anglican, Assemblies
of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical
Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian and Wesleyan --
but according to Zondervan, all translators are required to subscribe to the
Lausanne Statement or its equivalent affirming the "authority, inspiration
and infallibility of the Bible as the revealed Word of God."
Evangelical Response to the NIV Inclusive Language Proposals
World's March 29 article that led to the ethics charges attracted widespread
attention in the evangelical community. While a number of evangelicals
protested the inclusive language proposal, leaders in the 16-million-member
Southern Baptist Convention -- America's largest Protestant denomination --
played a key role.
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was particularly direct in his complaints. In an
interview with the official Baptist Press news agency, Mohler warned that
"nothing less than the integrity of the Word of God is at stake."
"The issue is whether we accept the revealed, inerrant and infallible Word
of God on its own terms," said Mohler, "or whether we, claiming modern
sensitivities, will seek to revise the language in order to avoid offending
persons on a number of issues."
Mohler said he and other Southern Baptist leaders continued to support World'
s integrity despite the ethics charges.
"The fact of the matter is that the evangelical community was unaware of the
proposed NIV revisions until World magazine's ground-breaking reports," said
Mohler in a later interview with United Reformed News Service. "Clearly World
magazine performed a service for the evangelical community by bringing this
matter of urgent concern to our attention. The proposed NIV revisions
presented a major challenge to the integrity of Bible translations, a matter
which should be of pressing and compelling concern for every evangelical.
Without these important news articles, we might be completely unaware of the
proposed revisions."
Several other leading Southern Baptist seminary presidents also spoke out
against the proposed inclusive language revisions -- most notably Dr. Paige
Patterson of Southeastern Baptist Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. Mohler and
Patterson have been leading conservative voices in the conflict over
theological direction in the Southern Baptist Convention.
As the conflict deepened, the Baptist Sunday School Board announced that it
could reconsider use of the NIV in its educational material, and the official
Baptist Press news agency reported that the Convention might pass an official
resolution on the subject at its mid-June annual meeting. (The Southern
Baptist call for a Disney boycott later became the major news out of the
Convention.) Baptist Sunday School Board representatives, other prominent
Baptist officials, and Mohler met with Zondervan president Bruce Ryskamp, NIV
Committee on Bible Translation secretary Dr. Ken Barker, and others in a May
19 meeting from which no official statements were issued. Just over a week
later, the International Bible Society issued its announcement that the
inclusive language revisions would not be published. Baptist Press reported
that "the IBS announcement resulted from May 22 and 24 meetings of its
six-member executive committee and a May 26 teleconference of its 20-member
board of directors." IBS announced the decision the next morning after the
unusual Memorial Day teleconference.
Even after the about-face, Southern Baptist Convention president Tom Elliff
cited the inclusive language controversy first in a list of seven battles
which must still be fought and won -- placing it even before an indirect
reference to President Clinton's position on partial birth abortion that
brought delegates to their feet in a standing ovation.
"But as long as any Bible publisher thinks that Southern Baptists are more
likely to purchase Bibles on the basis of 'political correctness' than
fidelity of the text, there are still battles to be fought," said Elliff in a
convention speech reported by Baptist Press as referring to the NIV
controversy.
Hours after the IBS announcement, Focus on the Family's founder Dr. James
Dobson convened a special meeting of representatives from both sides of the
controversy that issued a compromise statement on principles of Bible
translation. The May 27 meeting, called before the IBS announcement, led to
an agreement signed by the presidents of Zondervan and International Bible
Society, World publisher Joel Belz, the secretary of the Committee on Bible
Translation, and others -- an agreement that was critical of the translation
practices of the Committee on Bible Translation that had led to the British
inclusive language version.
"Many of the translation decisions made by those who produced Hodder and
Stoughten's New International Version Inclusive Language Edition in the
United Kingdom were not the wisest choices," according to the joint
statement. "Further, the statement in the Preface saying 'it is often
appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers
through gender-inclusive language' (Preface to the NIVI, vii) was regrettable
and sadly misleading."
What force the Dobson-brokered agreement will have is not entirely clear. In
a Christianity Today interview, Committee on Bible Translation chair Prof.
John Stek said that if Dobson "wanted official representatives of CBT he
should have contacted me."
The agreement's guidelines "have no standing with us," Stek told Christianity
Today. "We will look at them, as we look at all serious suggestions and
proposals."
Space Aliens, Bible Translations, and "Taking Sides in the Culture Wars"
The NIV conflict shone a bright spotlight into an area -- Bible translation
and translators -- that usually doesn't receive widespread media scrutiny
despite being foundational to much of the work of the Christian church.
Most Bible translation decisions rest on highly technical issues that rarely
draw public attention. The ancient Greek text of the New Testament and Hebrew
text of the Old Testament are among the best-attested literary productions of
the ancient world, and most textual variations involve word order changes,
substitution of words with similar meaning, or other items that have little
application to the life of the church. Apart from certain hotly-disputed
passages, there are few questions about the underlying Greek and Hebrew text
that affect doctrinal or ethical issues. Translating that text, however, is
another matter entirely.
While older translations such as the King James Version and a few recent
updates such as the New King James Version sought to employ a strictly
literal translation of a standardized Greek and Hebrew "textus receptus,"
most recent translations have used a "critical text" seeking to include
earlier manuscripts than were available to the King James translators in
1611. The key question in recent English translations has been how literal or
how idiomatic the translation should appear.
The New International Version utilizes a principle known as "dynamic
equivalence." In the International Bible Society's words, "the first concern
of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity
to the thought of the biblical writers."
"They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details
of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts," continued IBS. "At the same time,
they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought
patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication
of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in
sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words."
Application of that principle isn't always easy for the simple reason that
language changes its meaning with time.
"We're going to have to go through the NIV and replace all the references to
'aliens' because there's too many readers, particularly those 30 and under,
for whom the first thing they'll think of is a creature from outer space,"
said Prof. John Stek, chairman of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation and
a retired Old Testament professor at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, in an
interview with United Reformed News Service. "That change in language, how
people hear language, has happened in a very short amount of time due to a
number of happenings within the culture and developments in the culture and
things that are of interest today within the culture."
Stek cited the use of the vocative "O" -- as in "hear me O king" -- and the
suffix "-ite" as in "Israelite" and "Wisconsinite" as other examples of older
English word structures that are losing or have lost their meaning for many
modern readers. "There are language changes that translators have to take
account of, which may or may not result in changes depending on whether there
is any good option available," said Stek.
The NIV translators began a review process in anticipation of the NIV's 20th
anniversary in 1998. "We've been engaged in a review of the NIV text for a
number of years, looking at every word, phrase, and line, with a view toward
making any revisions that we thought necessary of any kind," said Stek. "We
had set that goal for 1998, that would be 20 years from the time of the
initial publication of the whole Bible. That has been going on and continues
to go on."
Stek said one of the changes brought up for consideration was the matter of
using the masculine gender as generic for both males and females. "The
English language is changing under all kinds of cultural forces so that the
masculine can no longer simply nor easily be used as generic for the human
race," said Stek. "That being the case, that affects how one writes, that
affects how one speaks in public discourse, and it has its effect also on how
one represents the ancient text."
"Once we decided that we focused on that aspect of the revision because that
was a rather special item, and worked that through for the whole Bible, and
now we're back to our general review of all other matters," said Stek.
Those cultural forces don't move in only one direction -- and the NIV
translators got caught in a conservative backlash against some of those
forces. "This issue touches base with the so-called culture wars of our times
in which emotions and passions run strongly on both sides, so I guess it's
kind of inevitable that a negative response would arise from certain
quarters," said Stek. "We've been charged with that, taking sides in the
culture battles. The charge is we've given way to feminists."
"We've had no feminists talking with us, we've had no communications from
any feminist groups, whether radical or not, our decisions were made entirely
apart from that," sad Stek.
According to Stek, pressure from a British audience resulted in the NIV's
European publisher putting out an inclusive language version of the NIV
before the rest of the revisions were complete. "Hodder & Stoughten were
eager to have an inclusive language edition available for their use in
England because the pressures were so great for it that they were allowed to
embody those changes even before we completed our general review," said Stek.
The International Bible Society's May 27 statement announcing cancellation
of plans for an inclusive language revision said the organization "will enter
into negotiations with the publisher of the NIV in the U.K. on the matter of
ceasing publication of its 'inclusive language' edition of the NIV," which
according to IBS currently has approximately 5,000 copies in print.
That version -- released in 1995 -- led to a fall 1996 article by Fuller
Theological Seminary professor Dr. David Scholer in Priscilla Papers, the
journal of Christians for Biblical Equality, calling for Zondervan and the
International Bible Society to publish the NIV's inclusive language edition
in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom. Less than three weeks
after the March 29 article in World accusing Zondervan and the International
Bible Society of planning to replace the current NIV with an inclusive
language edition -- a charge vehemently denied by Zondervan and IBS -- Priscil
la Papers published a letter by International Bible Society president Lars
Dunberg stating that "Zondervan and IBS will publish an inclusive language
version of the NIV in the American market." Since the Priscilla Papers is a
quarterly journal with a long lead time for articles, World noted that
Dunberg's letter was dated January 9, 1997, long before the World controversy
erupted.
"It is not clear yet if that will be done before the major revision that IBS
has been working on with the Committee on Bible Translation, which has been
going on for the last five-six years," wrote Dunberg. "It may be that the
next edition will include all those changes, and in that case will not be
released until the year 2000. These things are still being debated; that's
why we have not been public with it."
Dunberg's stated intention to publish an inclusive NIV in the American
market predated the agreement signed at Focus on the Family headquarters and
the May 27 International Bible Society announcement that IBS would forgo
plans to produce an inclusive language edition. Stek declined comment on what
effect the ethics charges against World could have on that decision if
affirmed by the full Evangelical Press Association board.
"CBT has no connection with the Evangelical Press Association, I'm just
outside of that loop so I can't say anything about what they may do, or may
not do, or what the consequences of that may be," said Stek. "I have no way
of making any judgment about whether it's good or right or wrong or bad."
How Would Inclusive Language Work?
By most accounts, "inclusive language" is a broad term with multiple
meanings. How does the Committee on Bible Translation define its meaning?
"It can be done without in any way distorting the biblical text," said Stek,
noting that the inclusive language text prepared by the Committee on Bible
Translation often though not always approached the problem by pluralizing
references which in the original text are singular.
Stek cited Psalm 1 as an example of this method. The current NIV reads
"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, or stand
in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers." The British inclusive
language revision reads "Blessed are those who do not walk in the counsel of
the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers;" the
simplified-language NIrV reads "Blessed are those who obey the law of the
Lord. They don't follow the advice of evil people. They don't make a habit of
doing what sinners do. They don't join those who make fun of the Lord and his
law."
Stek also cited Psalm 1 in a May 15 debate with Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary president Dr. R. Albert Mohler on the Fox News program "Hannity &
Colmes." On that program Stek said no "political agenda" was behind the
inclusive language revisions, which were made because the culture of the
ancient world of Scripture was "very patriarchal."
"Because it was very patriarchal, that affected the language," Stek told the
Fox viewers.
Asked by United Reformed News Service to comment on an analysis of the
inclusive language NIV by Dr. Wayne Grudem, professor of biblical and
systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in suburban
Chicago, which was published in World magazine and distributed through the
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Stek questioned Grudem's
scholarship in the biblical languages and the ability of the general public
or the news media to understand complex principles of Bible translation.
"It's not very scholarly, it has the facade of being scholarly, but again,
the reason why there's not been much reaction to that from the other side is
that you can't answer him in the same kind of simple throwing of stuff
around," said Stek. "You've got to argue the case, he doesn't argue the case,
he just makes claims, assertions. It's going to be awhile before the
scholarly response comes out."
Stek also warned that media "sound bites" ran the risk of misrepresenting
the issues. "They can make a single sentence statement which would require a
20 page response to be an adequate response. That's why you can't just
sound-bite it," said Stek. "You're not going to avoid that difficulty without
years of study in the languages and the cultures and cross-cultural issues
that are involved in that. That's why I say, you're going to come off like a
sports reporter writing about the latest developments in DNA investigation
and your readers are going to be at the mercy of your pen."
Grudem, who also serves as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood in addition to his professorial duties, also cited Psalm 1 -- but
in Grudem's case, as an example of the problems with the inclusive language
NIV. According to Grudem, "moral courage of solitary righteous man standing
against plural sinners is lost; singular Hebrew word ''Ish,' which ordinarily
means 'man' in distinction from woman, is mistranslated."
"Grudem says you're distorting it. Well, he's reading into Psalm 1 gender
that isn't in Psalm 1; he's reading a modern agenda into it," said Stek. "You
can pluralize it without in any way distorting the intention of the psalm."
Stek said Grudem is also wrong on the contrast of a solitary righteous man
standing against plural sinners. "He's reading that into that, there's no way
in which an Old Testament scholar would agree with him on that," said Stek.
"When he says that he doesn't know the Hebrew language; he apparently does
know the Greek a little better, but he certainly doesn't know the Hebrew
language," said Stek.
"'Ish is used in a great variety of ways in the Old Testament," said Stek.
"When 'Ish is used to refer to a male individual, many, many, many times,
more times I think than not, it is simply used as a way of referring to a
human being."
Grudem's analysis also objected that certain inclusive language translation
decisions introduced doctrinal confusion and possibly doctrinal error into
Scripture -- citing the charismatic movement and Arminianism as two examples
of such problems.
I Corinthians 14:28 in the current NIV reads "If there is no interpreter,
the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God."
The inclusive NIV reads "If there is no interpreter, the speakers should keep
quiet in the church and speak to themselves and God;" the NIrV reads "If
there is no one to explain, the speakers should keep quiet in the church.
They can speak to themselves and to God."
According to Grudem, the revision "can easily be understood to encourage
groups of tongue-speakers to go off together and speak in tongues 'to
themselves'" and "mistranslates three singular Greek words which Paul wrote."
John 6:44 in the current NIV reads "No one can come to me unless the Father
who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." The
inclusive NIV reads "No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me
draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day;" the NIrV reads "People
can't come to me unless the Father who sent me brings them. Then I will raise
them up on the last day."
According to Grudem, the revision "might easily be understood to support the
neo-orthodox and Arminian view that God chooses and calls groups of people,
not individuals, this is done by mistranslating two singular Greek words."
Grudem also warned that "individual's assurance of resurrection is also
obscured."
Stek said it was impossible to respond to Grudem's criticisms in brief.
"That's just simply a misconstrual of how language works. I have written a
fairly long response to a similar objection raised by somebody in IBS, and to
explain what I mean by that would simply take quite a while," said Stek. "But
in the judgment, not simply my judgment but the judgment of the whole
committee of CBT, which is made up of Greek and Hebrew scholars, that's just
a misconstrual of how language works and of the intent of the original text
in the places Grudem quotes."
According to Stek, a scholarly response will be coming. "Christianity Today
is working on it, I understand, and Tyndale Publishers are working to put
together a scholarly volume on the matter," said Stek. "Tyndale says we're
not going.to be bullied out of our inclusive language version, the New Living
Bible."
The Role of the Evangelical Press in Public Controversy
Regardless of who is right and wrong on the question of inclusive language, W
orld's article and the response to it have raised other questions on the role
of the press in the evangelical church.
"My favorite magazine from the 1830's, McDowell's Journal, exposed early
abortionists and businessmen who rented out their buildings as brothels,"
wrote World's editor Dr. Marvin Olasky in the magazine's June 14/21 issue.
"That was then, this is now -- and ironically, in much of latter-day
Christian journalism, public relations has triumphed. World should not have
had to expose the Stealth Bible project; many other Christian magazines, with
larger staffs and greater resources, could have done so. Fighting for God's
Word, however, means not only upsetting feminists, jeopardizing advertising
pages, and taking a lot of heat, but also (temporarily, we hope) reducing
public confidence in Zondervan and the International Bible Society."
Unlike many other Christian publications, World employs "directed
journalism" -- principles similar to the investigative journalism tactics
which were used by politically liberal journalists in the 1960's and 1970's
as well as by anti-corruption evangelical crusaders of an earlier generation.
While Olasky has published numerous books on the subject in his role as a
journalism professor at the University of Texas, applying investigative
journalism to the church isn't something many denominational, publishing, or
parachurch executives are used to seeing from Christian reporters.
However much World's tactics may have ruffled evangelical feathers, Olasky
said he had no intention of stopping anytime soon -- and warned that those
critical of World's reporting weren't likely to win in the long run.
"This is an outrageous attempt by Zondervan to use bogus ethics charges to
strangle an independent publication," said Olasky. "But give the Zondervan
public relations staffers credit. They are the energizer bunny of P.R. After
we blew the whistle on their company's plan, they tried to convince the broad
evangelical public to accept a Bible translation that would misquote God, and
they failed. They tried to convince Southern Baptist leaders, and they
failed. They tried to convince James Dobson and his Focus on the Family team,
and they failed."
Olasky said World operates by three basic principles: "biblical objectivity,
biblical sensationalism, and biblical confession of error." Olasky defined
"biblical sensationalism" as being "ready to report sensational facts -- as
the Bible does repeatedly -- in a provocative and evocative way, even when
such reporting may hurt cozy relationships or offend some people."
"Our prose is often understated, never hysterical, but even so our style
goes against the tendency of some evangelicals to reduce God's teaching to
one sandbox phrase: 'Be nice,'" said Olasky.
"Our three principles are not new," said Olasky. "They go back to the Bible,
and more recently to Christian journalism from the 1600's through the early
1800's. Those principles led to a journalistic reformation in that era, and
could do the same now, but they are antithetical to some prevalent notions of
neutrality, blandness, and harmony, defined not as reconciliation through
mutual obedience to God, but reconciliation by meeting others halfway in sin,
and then sitting around the campfire singing 'kumbaya.'"
Zondervan representatives declined to respond to World's printed response to
Zondervan's charges to the Evangelical Press Association ethics committee, or
to a news release sent out by World after the release of the ethics committee
report.
"After the first article was written we contacted World magazine directly
and tried to bring resolution to it. When we saw that no resolution was going
to be forthcoming, the nearest body that we could bring together would be the
Evangelical Press Association," said Zondervan spokesman Jonathan Petersen.
"We felt that if accountability was necessary that would be the body that
would best bring it."
"We chose the route we did to act decently and in order and we're satisfied
with the committee's report," said Petersen. "I don't want to go beyond what
we have done."
However, the International Bible Society's vice-president of translations
had more to say about his organization's reasons for filing charges. Dr.
Eugene Rubingh said his organization filed charges with the EPA because of Wor
ld's "abhorrent" conduct.
"I made the point that bringing up the issue of inclusive language and
criticizing inclusive language in various shades is very legitimate, it's a
dialogue which can be beneficial to all of us. What International Bible
Society found abhorrent was the manner in which the issue was approached,"
said Rubingh. "First of all, the title of the article, 'The Feminist
Seduction of the Evangelical Church,' we find very sensationalistic and
produced without any conversation with International Bible Society whatsoever
as to the truth of the allegations."
Rubingh also cited World's reference to the National Council of Churches'
inclusive language "New Revised Standard Version" and "sensationalistic terms
such as 'unisex' and 'neutered'" as examples of what IBS found "abhorrent."
"We find these to be violations of the EPA code of ethics, and we notice in
the EPA code of ethics that the integrity of organizations is not to be
impugned, and we find that there was an attack on those who produced the NIV
Bible and its inclusive language edition," said Rubingh.
IBS and Zondervan also both objected to World's initial article focusing on
the Committee on Bible Translation, which made brief references to Zondervan
and no reference to IBS, saying World should have contacted IBS and Zondervan
for interviews. World responded that their initial article dealt with
translation principles, not marketing concerns, and that they contacted
Zondervan and IBS when they became part of the story.
World's defense of its conduct didn't satisfy the EPA ad hoc ethics
committee, which noted that World's style of journalism complicated the
issue. "Part of the difficulty is a philosophy of journalism, evident in World
's reporting and fully developed in Marvin Olasky's writings, which believes
advocacy is the first and essential pillar of good journalism," wrote the
committee.
Despite the problems raised by the questions of philosophical approach, the
committee found "that World falls seriously short of upholding the EPA code"
in three areas: accuracy, an avoidance of distortion, and sensationalism.
After citing examples, the committee concluded that it "finds in World's two
articles unwarranted inferences attributed to Zondervan and the CBT, and
faulty conclusions which do not follow from the data presented."
"None of us on the ad hoc committee believe World has proven its case in
point; on the contrary, their view is substantially weakened by their
resorting to tactics that would be unacceptable to most other EPA editors and
editorial boards," closed the report. "We believe World has every right and
reason to open discussion on important issues related to Bible translation
and urge World to publish a full account, with equal prominence, of the
position taken by Zondervan and IBS in the interests of the public that World
purports to serve."
EPA executive director Ron Wilson said that the charges against World were
unusual but not unprecedented, noting that there have been "at least nine or
ten" previous cases. Wilson said the EPA's procedure in handling the charges
was in line with other ethics cases, although the organization has no written
procedures for handling ethics charges against member periodicals.
"The bylaws do not establish a procedure, we have only precedent," said
Wilson. "We do have sufficient precedent and we have followed that
precedent."
Wilson said one procedural error was to release the report before the full
board had a chance to deal with it. The International Bible Society announced
the ethics committee decision July 3 and posted the full text of the report
on its website July 8, following which World magazine began to publicly
criticize the report and make it available to the media.
"I would stress that it was a mistake on our part to release that document
because the board has not ruled on it one way or another," said Wilson. "The
report was sent to World and to IBS and Zondervan, what they have done with
that I have no idea."
World's publisher agreed with the EPA on at least one point -- releasing the
ethics report before the full board met was a bad idea.
"My great disappointment is EPA is so inexperienced in this sort of thing
that from beginning to end our lack of practice shows through loud and
clear," said Joel Belz. "That includes the process by which committee members
were chosen, the fact that the committee never talked with any
representatives from World magazine, the fact that the report of the
committee was publicly released before the EPA board ever responded to the
committee's work."
Belz said he didn't understand the motives of Zondervan or IBS. "I have been
very bewildered by that; I thought they did something honorable on May 27 in
abandoning their plans to press for a gender inclusive Bible," said Belz. "I
have been dismayed they are pressing these."
Despite the problems, Belz said he wanted to see the process through to its
conclusion. "I have twenty years invested in the EPA," said Belz. "Even if
they have erred in this procedurally, and I think they have, we are not
quitters. We will work hard to ensure that EPA is robustly supportive of the
kind of journalism that World is doing."
What will happen at the July 22 special meeting is unclear at best -- but it
is clear that Belz and Olasky will have some of the same powerful allies in
dealing with the ethics charges that they had in their initial reporting on
the inclusive language issue.
"I have no reason to believe that World magazine was in any way unethical in
its criticism of the proposed NIV revision," said Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary president Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. "I remain
unconvinced that World magazine acted in an improper manner in dealing with
this or any other issue. I have been impressed with the aggressive and
issues-oriented reportorial style of World magazine, and I think the presence
of this magazine is very important for the evangelical community."
Cross-References to Related Articles:
[No previous article on file]
Contact List:
Joel Belz, Publisher, World Magazine [For interview arrangements contact
Matthew Worthington]
PO Box 2330, Asheville, NC 28802
O: (800) 951-4974 * O: (704) 253-8063 * F: (704) 253-1556
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
2825 Lake Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY, 40223
O: (502) 897-4011 * FAX: (502) 899-1770
David Neff, Board President, Evangelical Press Association
465 Gunderson Dr., Carol Stream, IL 60188
O: (630) 260-6200 * F: (630) 260-0114
Dr. Marvin Olasky, Editor, World Magazine [For interview arrangements contact
Matthew Worthington]
PO Box 2330, Asheville, NC 28802
O: (800) 951-4974 * O: (704) 253-8063 * F: (704) 253-1556
Jonathan Petersen, Director of Corporate Affairs, Zondervan Publishing House
5300 Patterson SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49512
O: (616) 698-3417 * F: (616) 698-3223
Dr. Eugene Rubingh, Vice-President of Translations, International Bible
Society
2736 Westwood Blvd, Colorado Springs, CO 80918
O: (719) 488-9200 * H: (719) 598-7426 * FAX: (719) 488-0915 * E-Mail:
IBSTrans@aol.com
Prof. John Stek, Chairman, Committee on Bible Translation
2045 Ridgewood SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546
H/O: (616) 949-4134
Ron Wilson, Executive Director, Evangelical Press Association
485 Panorama Road, Earlysville, VA 22936
O: (804) 973-5941 * F: (804) 973-2710 * E-Mail: 74463.272@compuserve.com
----------------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/reformed/archive97: nr97-082.txt
.