So what do we do when a Bible translation is significantly revised as in the case of the NIV? Should we upgrade or remain with the tried and true translation? Should we consider a newer and different translation altogether such as the ESV? Knowing that there is no perfect translation, should we all learn Hebrew and Greek?

I love the NIV 1984. I grew up with it. A friend of my father’s was in charge of marketing the NIV. My dad still has an old promotional copy of the book of John from the 70’s. So I gave UBF bonus points immediately when I discovered that everyone uses the NIV. We’ve all read it, studied it, memorized it. Does the NIV translation committee really expect us to change to the NIV 2011?

I’m amenable to this revised edition of the NIV for three reasons: language, audience and, for lack of a better term, freshness.

First, language. The English language evolves so quickly that revisions to Bible translations are necessary every few years. The English language is not the same as it was in 1984. The NIV 1984(I’ll call it the ONIV) was the NIV’s first attempt at the translation. After years of usage, i.e, preaching, Bible study, and scholarly input, surely the NIV can improve upon their first translation. For example, the committee has changed the word “Christ” in Acts and other places to “Messiah.” “Messiah” is more accurate since it is the term that the disciples would have been using, especially since their first audience was Jewish. For another example, take Luke 1:18. The ONIV says that Mary was “with child.” What does that mean in contemporary English? It means that she was pregnant, which is exactly how the NIV 2011 renders that verse. I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase “with child” to refer to a pregnancy.

Now, “with child” may be a literal translation, but literal is not always the clearest or most lucid. The word for word translations are generally the ESV, NRSV, and the favorite of all Greek students, the NASB. I’m in favor of using literal translations for my Bible study and personal readings to get a deeper sense of a particular passage. However, I’m not crazy about the more literal translations to use in a church service. But, you may object, UBF is a Bible study centered ministry, we can handle the more stilted language of the literal translation. Yes, but we are also focused on evangelism. For new Christians and even non-Christians, a dynamic equivalent translation of the Bible (e.g., the NIV), where meaning, lucidity and readability are all taken into consideration, is the necessary choice. That brings us to the next point.

Second, audience. Who is our audience? Our official evangelistic focus is college students. I was one of them. Generation X and younger generations have been raised in gender inclusive language environments. They’ve used gender inclusive language throughout their education. Ask a college student what would happen if he or she only used the male pronoun to refer to men and women. Since gender inclusive language is so normal to me and to college students, shouldn’t we use it in our sermons and Bible studies?

Take a look at John 14:23. The ONIV says, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching.” The “he” makes me a little uncomfortable having been raised in a gender inclusive language environment. I much prefer the NIV 2011, which reads, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.”

I know some grammar mavens get vexed when plural pronouns are used in the same sentence as singular ones. Take a look at the entire verse, “²³ Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” We’ve got “anyone” and “them.” The translators say that this is a pragmatic or usage issue. This is an acceptable translation since this is the way that people talk. People will say “someone” and then say “they” referring back to “someone.” People talk like that all the time, even the grammar mavens.

Now, the issue of gender inclusive language isn’t about whether or not Generation X is comfortable with male only pronouns, the issue is whether or not gender inclusive language is biblically accurate. Mark Strauss, author of How to Choose a Translation for all it’s Worth, calls gender inclusive language in the NIV 2011 “gender accurate.” He writes,

“the Greek word anthropos can mean “person” (its primary meaning) or “man” (a secondary sense), depending on the context. While the NIV translated Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a man (anthropos) is justified by faith,” the NIV 2011 more accurately renders, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith.” Virtually everyone agrees that anthropos here means “person,” so the NIV 2011 translates it that way.
The NIV 2011 does not eliminate gender distinctions (as some critics claim) but rather clarifies them. References to females remain feminine. References to males remain masculine. But when the inspired authors are referring to both men and women, an inclusive term like person is used. This is just good translation policy—the kind of meaning-based translation practiced by Bible translators around the world.”

Gender accurate language is also nothing new in the biblical world. For more than twenty years translators have been using gender accurate language in their revised versions. These include the New Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible, The Message, the Contemporary English Version, and the New Living Translation among many others.

Third, freshness. Switching to the NIV 2011 will knock us all out of the comfortable world of the ONIV. Many of us have memorized significant portions of the ONIV, not to mention the gospel key verses, yearly key verses, and life key verses. Some second gens have grown up memorizing the ONIV in CBF Bible memorization contests. We could settle down and be comfortable with the ONIV for the rest of our lives. However, the NIV 2011 gives us a unique opportunity to use a fresh and yet familiar translation. Some of the verses we’ve memorized will remain the same. Some revised verses will challenge us to look at them in a new light. A friend of mine told me that he prepared a thematic workshop on marriage. Since everyone uses the ONIV at his church, he decided to use other translations for some familiar verses he was using in his presentation. His plan worked—people read the verses as if they were reading them for the first time.

Making the switch to the NIV 2011 doesn’t mean we have to abandon the ONIV. Switching to the NIV 2011 will only make our Bible study that much richer and deeper. When the NIV 2011 renders a verse differently than the ONIV, we’ll be compelled to figure out the reason. Is the new rendering more literal? Was the old rendering confusing or convoluted?

Are you going to make the switch?

Jeannine Brown’s book Scripture as Communication offers the reader a communicative model for biblical interpretation. God communicates with us, and he uses the variegated genres of the Bible to accomplish this purpose. According to Brown, this understanding allows for cognitive and noncognitive interpretations of a text. A biblical author may write a propositional statement, but he may also be doing something as he writes: praising, exhorting, etc. In short, “a communication model allows for such a holistic approach” (pg. 16).

Brown beckons us to approach the Bible with a hermeneutic of communication. Before adopting this the communicative model, we ought to ask whether or not the theory can account for interpreting all of the genres of the Bible, and how well this theory can be applied in practical theology — in the pulpit, in Bible study, in evangelism, and on the mission field.

Brown gives an overview of her model: “Scripture’s meaning can be understood as the communicative act of the author that has been inscribed in the text and addressed to the intended audience for purposes of engagement” (p. 14). What does this actually mean?

First, the communicative act of the author is synonymous with communicative intention. Brown deliberately uses the term “communicative act of the author” rather than “authorial intention.” An author may wish to communicate something, but may actually communicate something else. “Authorial intention” may fail to capture the impact that the text actually has on the reader. Brown, therefore, eschews the term “authorial intention” for the more precise “communicative act of the author,” which has been “inscribed in the text.”

Second, we — the present-day readers of the Bible — are the intended audience that the author proposes to engage.

Brown claims that Christians are a part of the intended audience because we identify with the original intended audience. Brown writes, “Even as we seek the author’s communicative act, we will need to be aware of the importance of our stance and responses as readers” (p. 14). We atend to the culture and context to which the author wrote, yet we do not neglect to include our culture and context when understanding the author’s communicative intent.

Brown’s point about intended audience underscores the importance of the term “communicative act.” The author of James may have intended to address Jewish Christians familiar with wisdom literature, yet his epistle engages cultures and contexts far beyond the group of people he may have had in mind. When Brown writes of engagement, she is referring to perlocution, which is a speech-act theory term denoting communicative result. In order for the author’s communicative act to be complete, it must result in perlocutionary intention. The intent of James 1:22 to not only be hearers of the word but also doers first needs to be understood, then needs to be acted upon. Once the audience responds properly to James’ communicative intention by acting upon the word, then his full communicative act will have been successful.

Brown develops her thesis well. In the first part of the book, she explains the communication model in light of various theoretical perspectives, and in the second part she applies the model to the interpretive categories of genre, language, the social world of the Bible, literary context, canon, and contextualization. While dealing with each subtopic, she keeps a strong focus on the communication model throughout; she always brings the reader back to the thesis of her book, that Scripture’s meaning is a communicative act by an author.

This book is helpful for readers of a college level or above. The writing is clear, and the author makes difficult topics understandable. Part of this clarity is to take a complex theory and guide the reader through an application. Brown also keeps the reader’s attention focused on Scripture. She offers practical application of a particular theory to a biblical text, even in the first part of the book where she deals more with theory than practice. She provides helpful appendices which enable the reader to understand the Bible through multiple categories.

Central to Brown’s thesis is meaning. She deals with meaning in chapter four. She defines meaning as “the complex pattern of what an author intends to communicate with his or her audience for purposes of engagement, which is inscribed in the text and conveyed through use of both shareable language parameters and background-contextual assumptions” (pg. 48). Discovering the Bible’s meaning does not come easily. The reader has to do some digging before he or she can discover what God is communicating through language and background-contextual assumptions. Biblical interpretation will invariably turn up different meanings, but this does not the Bible a relative book open to any and every interpretation. As Fee says, “Unique interpretations are usually wrong” (KJV class notes lecture 1 page 1). Meaning is determinate but complex. Brown explains determinacy in relation to the communication model. “Determinacy means that interpretations can be weighed on the basis of their alignment and coherence with an author’s communicative intention” (pg. 87). Brown offers a balanced definition of determinacy here. She puts equal weight on the author and the reader. It is the author (or Author) who communicates to us, yet readers interpret the communicative intention and not the authorial intention. The text will always have a determinate meaning, but our experience and application of the text will bring out the complexity of its meaning.

The communication model of hermeneutics is readily applicable to one’s growth as a faithful Christian. The model encourages us to become doers of the word by recognizing that the text is communicating. Through the communication model, the reader can seek to understand God’s illocution and render the proper response. When this perlocutionary intention is actualized, the communicative act is complete.

The main drawback I found in Brown’s book was the absence of description of the triune God. She does mention that he is the Author, but mentioning the attributes of God would have greatly bolstered her case for the communication model. In order for God’s communicative act to be complete, we need to understand his illocution to us at a particular time and place, and respond properly. But how can we understand fully if we do not appreciate who God is? On the other hand, if we do appreciate God’s eternal power and divine nature, we can respond properly and willingly, even to the point of giving our lives in obedience to his illocution.

Absent also is an explanation about the role of the Holy Spirit in understanding the text. Brown gives the reader the impression that if he or she has the right tools and methods, then correct interpretation will follow. Understanding the Bible through the implementation of the right means does not supersede human being’s dependance on the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, as Barth wrote, is the Lord of the hearing. Only by his help can we hear, understand, and respond to what God wants to communicate to us.

Philip Jenkins, writing in his pre-9-11 book The Next Christendom, laments the fact that religion — in particular, the dawning of the movement of Christianity from a Western European and North American context to a Latin American, Asian and African one — “was barely mentioned in all the media hoopla surrounding the end of the second millennium.”[1] With the rise of Christianity in the Southern hemisphere, the most important issues in politics, demographics, land and culture in the majority world will have to do with how well Christians interact with each other and with other religions such as Islam. Jenkins writes, “I suggest that it is precisely religious changes that are the most significant, and even the most revolutionary, in the contemporary world. Before too long, the turn-of-the-millennium neglect of religious factors may come to be seen as comically myopic…”[2]

Given the projections that by 2050 only one Christian in five will be white, Jenkins endeavors to investigate the ecclesiastical and theological impact of the Southern hemispheric shift on the whole Church.

(Just to clarify: throughout this article, I will use “Church of the global South” to refer to Christianity below the equator, and “Church of the West” to refer to the Christianity of Western Europe.)

Jenkins believes that we should give pause before asserting “what Christians believe” or “how the church is changing.” [3] Such blanket statements usually refer to what Western Christians believe. Before presenting the “Christian” stance on an issue, we need to acknowledge that Christianity has undergone a global shift.

The Church in the global South defies stereotype. At present, the Southern hemisphere is home to the poorest people on the planet. With the advent of liberation theology, one might expect Christianity in South America, for example, to be politically-minded, leftist and revolutionary. However, that is not the case. Jenkins writes, “the denominations that are triumphing all across the global South are the stalwartly traditional or even reactionary by the standards of the economically advanced nations.”[4]

Many denominations are feeling the impact of the global shift. In the Roman Catholic church, for example, Catholics in the global South already outnumber their Western counterparts. It is the Vatican’s best interest to cater to the conservative views of the South rather than the liberalism of the West. Jenkins states, “In the traditionalist view, adapting to become relevant or sensitive to the needs of the Western elites would be suicidal for the long-term prospects of the Church. It is the so-called traditionalists, rather than the liberals, who are playing the political game of the new century.”[5]

How does Christianity in the global South differ from that in the West? To answer this question, I will focus here on issues of gender and sexuality. Sex and gender roles are divisive issues in the traditionalist-liberal debates in the West. Yet if we analyze these issues from a purely Western perspective, we can easily miss what is truly happening. For example, Jenkins cites an article by New York Times reporter Brent Staples, who was argued that Christianity “had failed and was collapsing, and would continue to do so unless and until the religion came to terms with liberal orthodoxies on matters of sex and gender.”[6] Although ordained women are a crucial part of leadership in Latin American Pentecostal churches and African Independent Churches, those churches are still comfortable preaching traditional roles for women in society. Abortion is prohibited in Africa, and homosexuality is seen as an alien practice.

Southern views on gender roles and sexuality are reinforced by their biblical interpretation. Southerners believe that Scripture speaks clearly and decisively and on these issues, whereas Westerners look for cultural context in the Bible and deem it necessary “for churches to change in accordance with secular progress.”[7] “Liberals judge Scripture by the standards of the world; conservatives claim to set an absolute value on Scripture and religious sources of authority.”[8] So at Lambeth 1998, the Southern Anglican bishops defeated Western liberal motions on gay rights. Conservatives in the West discovered that that they had large numbers of allies in Africa. Lambeth inspired conservative Anglican Americans to be ordained in the conservative Southern Anglican church, and henceforth become a part of the Anglican mission in America to “lead the Episcopal Church back to its biblical foundations.”[9]

Throughout this book, Jenkins proved his thesis well. Specifically, with respect to gender and sexuality, he argues that views of the global South have increasing ecclesiastical and theological salience.

Unfortunately, Jenkins says little about hermeneutics. Personally, I would have liked more discussion on how Christians in the global South and West differ in how they approach Scripture. Biblical interpretation lies at the core of many divisive issues.

I think that readers could also have benefited from a brief section about Southern views of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is related to hermeneutics. For example, if the African Anglican church believes that the Holy Spirit is working through them in a special way, they would naturally claim to have greater authority on biblical interpretation and downplay the presence of the Holy Spirit among Episcopals and Anglicans in America and England. As Western Christians struggle to understand Southern perspectives on gender and sexuality, they need to consider how their brothers and sisters in the South see them in light of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit.

[1] Pg. 3
[2] Pg. 1
[3] Pg. 3
[4] Pg. 7
[5] Pg. 197
[6] Pg. 9
[7] Pg. 201
[8] Pg. 202
[9] Pg. 203

How are believers supposed to deal with remaining sin in their hearts? Those who align themselves with Reformed theology believe in the total or radical depravity of human beings’ hearts. So, even though a believer is free from the dominion of sin (Romans 6) he or she is still under the influence of sin. In order to deal with the influence of sin in the believer the Holy Spirit must put to death or mortify the misdeeds of the body (Romans 8:13).

This putting to death the misdeeds of the body by the Spirit is the subject of John Owen’s masterpiece,The Mortification of Sin. Owen, a Puritan pastor and theologian, lays down this thesis: “The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business all their days, to mortify the indwelling power of sin. The principal cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit: ‘if by the Spirit.'” Mortification of sin is putting sin to death at the root level. To “mortify” is “to take away the principle of all [its] strength, vigor, and power, so that [it] cannot act or exert, or put forth any proper actings of [its] own.”

How do we mortify sin? I highlight three points from Owen:

1. Owen makes it plain that only in believers does the Spirit mortify sin. “Mortification is not the present business of unregenerate men.” If a church first calls the unbeliever to mortification and not conversion, the unbeliever will surely be lost. The gospel is the foundation of repentance and mortification. Without the full acceptance of Christ’s atoning finished work on the cross one cannot accept his or her radical depravity. Therefore, anyone trying to mortify sin without first accepting the gospel is on the road to becoming a self-justifier. Owen asks this rhetorical question: “Can sin be killed without an interest in the death of Christ, or mortified without the Spirit?” Owen grieves for those who perform works of righteousness without knowing the righteousness of Christ and the guidance of the Spirit. “There is no death of sin, without the death of Christ.”

2. Get to the root motivation of sin. What is the root of the outward manifestation of sin in a believer? Is it an embedded secret atheism? Is it pride? Selfish ambition? As soon as sin rises, recognize the motivation behind it and put it to death by the Spirit. An unmortified sin is dangerous, even deadly. Sin always wants to go all the way. “Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery, if if could; every covetous desire would be oppression; every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head.” To allow sin to get a foothold in one’s heart is to allow sin to progress to the utmost. Sin is serious and costly.

3. “Set faith at work on Christ.” Once the seriousness and motivation of sin has been discerned one must hold to the promises of Scriptures. This is done by directing one’s faith to the gospel. In the last chapter of the book, Owen writes, “Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of thy sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and thou wilt die a conqueror. Yea, thou wilt, through the good providence of God, live to see thy lust dead at thy feet.”

If we have understood the motivation and seriousness of our own sin, and then we “set faith at work on Christ” the blood, righteousness, work and cross of Christ will appear to us so sweet, so glorious, so precious, so necessary. The Spirit shows us the love of God through the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. With God’s love so apparent, sinning is less attractive. Pleasing God becomes more pleasurable than committing sin.

The Mortification of Sin is written from a pastor’s heart with a pastor’s wisdom. This book emerged as a series of sermons Owen delivered, as most Puritan books did. There are no superficial fixes, no simple solutions. Mortifiying sin by the Spirit is necessary. We can’t simply break bad habits. Sin has to have the life taken out of it at the motivational level by the Spirit. We must examine our hearts realistically with the guidance of the Spirit through the mirror of Scripture. Then, the life-changing power of Almighty God works in our hearts.

A note on works: Owen says that “duties are excellent food for a healthy soul; they are no physic (medicine) for a sick soul.” If someone has fallen into grievous sin, works and duties will not help him or her. Owen, in chapter 3, describes a scenario he must have witnessed several times as a minister: “Men are galled with the guilt of a sin that hath prevailed over them; they instantly promise to themselves and God that they will do so no more; they watch over themselves and pray for a season, until this heat waxes cold and the sense of sin is worn off; and so mortification goes also, and sin returns to its former dominion.” Mortification of sin, then, is a work of the Holy Spirit alone. “He causes us to grow thrive, flourish, and abound in those graces which are contrary, opposite, and destructive to all the fruits of the flesh, and to the quiet or thriving of indwelling sin itself.”

I’ve used The Mortification of Sin in my Bible studies and personal counseling, including counseling myself. The book has opened my eyes to what Scripture has to say about the mortification of sin in a believer. The book also offers keen insight on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which Owen has written about extensively in his book, The Holy Spirit. I’d recommend Owen’s book without reservation to any believer–old or young. I especially commend it to those who counsel or who teach the Bible regularly. It’s a treasure of wisdom.