NIV out of favor with First Baptist(Houston). That was the headline in the Belief section of the Houston Chronicle last Friday, January 24, 2012. Knowing that there was a whole lot more to the story, I wrote a letter to the author of the piece, a reporter named Kate Shellnut. I want to share the email letter that I wrote to the reporter.
You wrote a good story, but there are nuances in this whole story that most people, including Baptists, do not understand.
The story actually is all about you – Kate Shellnutt – because you are a woman.
This is a story about keeping women in submission. They really don’t care what John 3:16 says. What they do care about is described more accurately by what you reported Justin Easley of Tallowood Baptist Church said when asked about the new NIV translation: “the gender issues weren’t big enough to raise concerns.”
First Baptist Church, Houston is affiliated with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) which pulled out of the Baptist General Convention of Texas in 1998.
Tallowood Baptist Church is still a big part of Baptist General Convention of Texas, which is said to be more moderate.
First Baptist Church, Houston and Second Baptist Church, Houston (five campuses, pastor Ed Young, Sr. , father of sexperiment* pastor Ed Young, Jr.) are more fundamental and restrictive against women. They do not believe that women can have authority over men and that a woman cannot teach a man, or be a deacon, and heaven help us! she certainly can’t be a pastor. So they pulled out of BGCT, which by the way, has only a half dozen women pastors and about that many deacons in their 5000 churches.
The SBC fundamentalist churches, which they are, have signed the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 which says that women cannot preach and that “women should graciously submit to their husbands.”
So you see, it is all about the women. The new NIV uses some few words that indicate that the Bible is speaking to both men and women, instead of only men. They wouldn’t describe it that way, but that is essentially what it is.
The Holman Bible, which First Baptist Church Houston now uses, was funded by LifeWay, a Southern Baptist Convention entity – the same one that gave Baptists the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. (churches are affiliated with the state convention (BGCT and/or SBTC) and also the national convention which is the big cheese – the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
Because one of the main tenets of Baptists is inerrancy, people would say “but which Bible is inerrant? They say different things.” So SBC and LifeWay got them a Bible that they controlled the translation of and now we know which Bible is inerrant. It is the Holman. And you can be sure, there are NO gender inclusive terms in that Bible.
I worked for Baptist General Convention of Texas for almost 15 years.
I am also on the steering committee of a conference April 27-28, 2012 which deals with women’s equality. I invite you to come and get a real lesson in what is being taught against women in our local churches. Dr. Todd Still of Truett Seminary (BGCT) will be one of our speakers. You can find more on our website www.cbehouston.org.
Yes, I agree. The reason these churches have a problem with the NIV 2011 is all about the gender-accurate language (which also happens to be gender-inclusive). If it weren’t for that, these groups woud have accepted the NIV update just fine.
LikeLike
You are bsolutely right. But the pastor of FBC Houston, is not reported as saying anything about that. He pulled out John 3:16. Do you think that even they might realize that they belittle women with their stubborness?
LikeLike
Agreed. The Presbyterian Chuch in (of?) America (PCA) has switched to the ESV for the same reason. Funny thing is, in our former (PCA) church, the switch in preference was never recognized (not before we left, at least), much less explained. But given its masculinist practices and conversations I had with the pastor, I have no doubt that spiritualized institutional sexism was behind the switch from the NIV to the ESV. THE reason, as a matter of fact. Every other reason given is a smokescreen IMO.
LikeLike
Shirley, what do you mean when you said “he pulled out John 3:16”?
LikeLike
In the interview, the pastor of FBC Houston, gave the example of what John 3:16 said in the NIV and how it is worded in the Holman. Essentially it says the same thing, and the wording doesn’t change anything – certainly not enough difference to get rid of the NIV and switch to the Holman. What he did not say – at least in the interview – is that he, the pastor, does not like how the new NIV deals with gender inclusivity, but he gave the example of John 3:16 instead.
LikeLike
Shirley, your link at the beginning of this article is about the TNIV, not the NIV 2011.
Here is the NIV translation commitee’s response to the CBMW’s negative review of the NIV 2011. (Several people on the NIV translation commitee hold to complementarian views.) http://www.niv-cbt.org/wp-content/uploads/cbt-response-to-cbmw-review.pdf
I have a few articles about Bible translations (including the ESV, NLT and the NIV 2011) on my website: http://newlife.id.au/tag/bible-translations/
LikeLike
I changed it! Thanks for sending me the proper link. That is an excellent link.
LikeLike