TIME’s cover story is on Evangelicals in America. I haven’t had time to sit down and read the whole thing, but at first glance, this seems to be better than most of the stuff the weekly newsmags do on evangelicalism.

They have a photo essay on the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. The list is actually quite good and fairly representative. As a side note, I’ve actually met and talked to a number of these individuals, which kind of shocks me. Here’s my take …
(more…)

It really is a great day for Democracy when millions of Iraqis can vote in a free election for the first time in generations. A new chapter is being added to the long story of liberty.

Stacy Harp has responded to my original reply on the issue of the TNIV.

Let me take a few minutes to cover some of her points.

First, I made the claim that the NIV translation (and all translations) are not the Word of God itself. Stacy disagrees:

While I understand where Marcus is coming from, I wholeheartedly disagree with his point about this translation NOT being the Word of God. It is the Word of God. I’ve heard it said, “That the bible doesn’t contain the Word of God, it is the Word of God” , so how can it be a translation of something that Marcus claims it isn’t? That isn’t logical.

I’ll clarify my statement a bit. I agree that the Bible is the Word of God. But then we have to ask, what do we mean when we say “the Bible”? When we speak, for example, of the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Bible, what are we talking about? Most theologians would agree that we’re talking about the original manuscripts when we speak in those terms. I’d argue that the NIV is a translation of the Word of God. Any translation is riddled with errors, shortcomings, and cultural compromises. The task of the translator is to take the texts that exist — and there are no original texts available to them and those that do exist have a number of variations — and do their best, with the aid of the Holy Spirit to choose the words that best express the Word of God in the time and place that the text is being translated.

I think a major problem with evangelicals today is that they elevate the Bible to a level that it doesn’t belong. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to minimize the importance of Scripture, but I think we need to put it in the proper context of the church. But that’s an entire side issue.

Stacy further accuses me of not taking seriously the objections that many have to the TNIV’s language choices. I’ll plead guilty to that. I really don’t care about their objections simply because I think the same laundry list of problems can be made for ALL translations. Every translation team makes choices. They make those choices for reasons. Usually, those are reasons of trying to best express an idea to the intended audience. Some readers will agree with those choices. Others will not. Welcome to the world of Bible translation. The TNIV is no different in that regard than the KJV, RSV, NASB, etc.

And for every leader and scholar that opposes the TNIV, there’s a whole list of equally qualified scholars supporting it. What can we conclude from this? Is it a matter of orthodoxy versus heresy? Or is it simply a matter of taste? Chocolate versus vanilla, perhaps?

Further, Stacy and those objecting to the TNIV continue to cite a feminist agenda, lurking in the shadows. This is a charge that has yet to be supported with any evidence. I find it appalling and downright insulting to suggest that a committee of scholars are trying to subvert the Bible for some political cause. If it’s true, then where’s the evidence?

None of the translators can be linked to a feminist agenda. They are not liberals and do not come from backgrounds that would suggest they have any biases towards anything other than orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps my biggest problem with all of this is that we waste our time fighting among ourselves on this issue, which takes resources away from more imporant issues of evangelism and discipleship. I really don’t think it matters what kind of Bible translation Zondervan publishes. I really don’t. If that Bible an be used to share Jesus with someone, then I have no problem with it.

I find it ironic that Zondervan has taken out ads in popular publications like Rolling Stone to promote the TNIV. They’re trying to reach young people with the Bible while James Dobson is trying to shout them down.

I guess it was her husband who perfected the idea of triangulation as a political strategy, so we shouldn’t be surprised that Hillary Clinton is moving to the right on the issue of abortion, according to this NY Times article.

Honestly, it’s a smart move for a couple of reasons. First, the abortion debate in this country is pretty meaningless in its current form. Both sides have become so polarized that no one seems interested in solving the real problems underlying abortion. I really wish a candidate would be willing to stand up to the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies and demand that both sides work on solving some problems instead of name-calling. I just didn’t think it would be Hillary.

Second, Hillary realizes that if she is going to win in 2008, assuming she’s in the race, that she must present an alternative to both the conservative Republicans, who don’t seem to have any genuine heir apparent for Bush, and the badly damaged Democrats, marked by the lackluster Kerry defeat and the insane bid to install Howard Dean as the chair of the DNC. I think if Hillary positions herself as a populist moderate, she could rally the defeated Democrats and shave off enough Republicans to make a run for it.

The real question is whether her talk will mean anything. I think the key to solving the abortion problem in this country is really about doing a better job reducing crisis pregnancies, which can be accomplished a number of ways. Certainly, better sex education, including a commitment to abstinence, would be a start. The fact that anyone thinks it’s healthy and normal for 14, 15, and 16 year-olds to be running around having all kinds of freaky sex should be pretty shocking. Let’s start there. Let’s start by killing the notion that the right to have sexual intercourse — especially if you’re a minor — is a protected human right.

Beyond that, I think we need to make real efforts to take the profit motive away from the abortion industry, which I’m sure will raise the hackles of Planned Parenthood, who makes its living off of crisis pregnancies. If Planned Parenthood spent as much time promoting adoption as it does abortion, I think we’d see a marked decrease in abortions in this country.

Stacy has asked for a little further explanation of my issues with all the TNIV opponents.

The NIV is a translation of the Word of God. It is NOT the Word of God itself. The NIV (along with the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, etc.) are all full of linguistic compromises, shortcomings, and downright errors. That’s the nature of translations. People try their best to express thoughts recorded in a different time, in a different language in a way that’s both understandable in modern English and also true to the authors’ original intent. There is never a perfect translation. It simply doesn’t exist.

I have no problem if people have their favorite translations. That’s great. That’s clearly a taste issue. Like I said in my original post, I’d encourage everyone to use multiple translations in order to get a variety of points of view. Each translation will bring something different to your understanding. I also should stick in a plug for learning Greek and Hebrew so you can read the Bible in its original languages, which is really the best way to capture the original syntax and grammar. Now, I understand that not everyone can do that, but it’s a better use of time and energy than reading Left Behind. But I digress.

My problems with those people who oppose the TNIV are twofold. First, most of the opposition to the TNIV has been rooted in a suspicion that the translators have been co-opted by feminists and liberals trying to distort the Bible with their own evil theological agenda. There has never been any evidence to support this fact. None of the translators come from liberal or feminist backgrounds. They all come from mainstream, reputable institutions and most have been involved in the NIV translation efforts for many years.

I think it’s dishonest and troubling that in an effort to shutdown the TNIV, James Dobson and others are making false allegations that are without any merit. If you dislike the way the TNIV renders the original text, that’s fine. But don’t read more into it than is really there. I think it’s really troubling to use the phrase “unbiblical” to describe the translation.

Further, I have no problem if you have problems with some of the decisions that the translation committee made when it came to rendering gender in certain passage. I think in some cases, they made good decisions, and in other cases, made bad decisions. That’s the way Bible translation is done. You have to weigh a number of priorities when working on a project like this. Inevitably, you are going to make someone upset.

Is the TNIV the best possible translation? Maybe, but maybe not. It’s simply another version that attempts to address changes in language that have happened in recent years. I think that’s one of the problems here. Those who support the NIV in its 1984 revision and object to any changes are living in denial. The English language constantly evolves, for better or for worse.

Part of the tasks of both IBS and CBT is to get the Bible into the hands of as many people as they can. That means being sensitive to the cultural context that those people come from, which is often different from the cultural context that most evangelicals come from. As a result, a lot of well-intentioned people are going to object to the end result, which is probably the exact response that should be elicited.

If you think there are theological problems with the TNIV, then you are good company with people who think the same thing about the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NASB, CEV, ESV, etc. Anytime a translation is closely scrutinized, people find problems. Again, that’s the nature of translations. Translating the Bible is a lot like making sausage — if you saw how it was done, you probably wouldn’t want any part of it.

But any translation of the Bible is simply a human rendering of a divinely inspired text — nothing more, nothing less. Changing, updating, revising, or altering that text does not make it more or less the Word of God.

If you like th TNIV, then buy it and use it. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. But please do not try to shade the motivations of the translators or publisher as anything that they really aren’t.

Now we’re talking … CBS chief Les Moonves has made comments hinting that when Dan Rather steps down as anchor of the CBS Evening News in March, Rather will be replaced by a group of anchors, likely reporting from different cities.

Moonves said

“Those days are over when you have that guy sitting behind the desk who everyone believes to the `nth’ degree,” Moonves told reporters. “It’s sort of an antiquated way of news telling and maybe there’s a new way of doing it.”

I think he’s getting the right idea. He also didn’t rule out a role for Jon Stewart, who works for Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS.

I think it makes sense on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it stirs the pot a little. It’s not the easy decision that NBC made with Brian Williams. If CBS goes this direction, they’ll get at least a little pop in the ratings because of the curiosity factor.

I also think it acknowledges the reality of the marketplace. Cable news understood that the talk radio format is a viable television format as well. FOX, MSNBC, and CNN have all bought into that. I’m not saying CBS ought to go completely in that direction, but going with a multi-anchor format would at least provide a variety of opinions and perspectives. Ideally, this would mean higher accontability for everyone, which is something CBS sorely needs right now.

I’d look for CBS to tap Stewart, Anderson Cooper, and at least one other “dark horse” to join the usual suspects of John Roberts and other CBS mainstays to round out the crew.

I got an e-mail from Stacy Harp whose media empire includes mediasoul and einvolved.org. She’s always out in front on a lot of important issues, and both her sites are worth checking out.

She sent me an e-mail about the TNIV, which for those of you who aren’t in the loop, is Zondervan’s “Today’s New International Version of the Bible”. It’s generated a fair amount of controversey since the idea first emerged in 1997. Stacy picked up on an article in USA Today that reports that the complete TNIV translation will be out next month. A number of people aren’t happy with the translation.

But first, the backstory …
(more…)

Lots of shake-up in the cable news world in the last few weeks.

Tucker Carlson and his comrades on CNN’s Crossfire got the boot, as the show is being shuttered after two decades of verbal combat. I actually like Carlson (don’t tell Jon Stewart!) because I think he’s smarter and wittier than Sean Hannity, who is the biggest no-talent pretender out there. He also seems like a genuinely nice guy when not forced to spar with James Carville or Paul Begala. The rumor is that he’s heading over to MSNBC to take over the Deborah Norville slot, which she recently vacated. That means the program line-up over there would look like this — 7pm ET Chris Matthews, 8pm ET Keith Olbermanm, 9pm ET Tucker Carlson, 10pm ET Joe Scarborough. I still argue that they should get Dennis Miller into the line-up somewhere. Maybe give him the 11pm slot, instead of repeating Matthews.

There’s also some news that Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley will be doing some kind of show together on MSNBC in the near future.

The other intersting news is that with the demise of Crossfire, CNN may be be reshuffling it’s line-up, giving Anderson Cooper some more room to work. Apparently, his show may be expanded to two hours may involve some relationship with the Paula Zahn show that’s tanked. Cooper also did some reporting on 60 Minutes this week, which has lead to speculation that he may be under consideration to fill the CBS News vacany left by Dan Rather when he leaves in March. I know it’s a stretch, but if CBS is serious about blowing up their news division and completely relaunching it, then why not?

I’m not going to jump into the fray between the right and left over WilliamsGate and the developing BloggerGate, as described in this story in the WSJ.

Clearly, the situation with the Bush Education Department paying Armstrong Williams money to schill for No Child Left Behind is not only a pretty embarrassing revelation, but the move was pretty ineffective. First, Williams has been a hack for a long time. Few people take him or his opinion seriously. In a media universe with loudmouths like Michael Savage, wannabe hotties Ann Coulter, and superstars like Rush Limbaugh, why even waste any money on a hack like Williams? Stupid on all counts.

The flip side of this are the new revelations that some bloggers took money from the Dean campaign to act as “consultants”. Now, the two stories are clearly different. The bloggers in question did disclose their connection to Dean, but probably failed to be as forthcoming as they should have been. The problem is that bloggers are often seen as being more virtuous than they deserve. While the inherent bias of bloggers is pretty much assumed these days, there’s been little discussion about the motives behind the blog. Are we surprised that bloggers can be bought, even if we use that word loosely?

This is the ethical gray area that the blogosphere has been built in. The same types of self-disclosure and accountability expected of mainstream media, corporate America, and the government are not expected of bloggers. It becomes more troubling since bloggers typically represent themselves and not a larger institution that provides a paycheck. The result is that bloggers, for good or for ill, are motivated by self-interest. Would they take money to pimp a candidate? Would they accept gifts — iPods, TiVos, etc. — to provide favorable reviews? Sure they would. This shouldn’t surprise us, nor should it offend us. It’s simply the rules of engagement in the blogosphere.

So I got it done faster than I thought I would. I got on a roll, I guess.

Anyway, as you can now see, the site is redesigned. There are undoubtedly bugs to be fixed, and I still want to add a few items that I didn’t have the patience to work out. But for the most part, it’s done.

A couple of user notes … I’ve divided the site into two main parts. The first part is where you’re reading this post. All of my entries that feature my thoughts, analysis, commentary, etc. will still appear on the top of the page and in the main RSS feed. The other part of the site is now known as “elsewhere”. It’s a collection of links to stories and sites that need little context or explanation. I wanted a place to dump items that I found interesting but didn’t think merited a full entry. All of the elsewhere items will be at the bottom of the page and wil be included in a separate RSS feed. For now, I’m not going to archive these items on this site. I may do that once they start to pile up.

Let me know what you like and what needs to be fixed. Enjoy.

I’m in the middle of a massive site re-design, which should hopefully wrap up shortly. In the meantime, I won’t be doing a lot of posting.

Look for a new and improved site before the end of the month.

Anyone who doubts that we did the right thing in Afghanistan only needs to read this story:

KABUL:Afghans donated blood on Wednesday for the victims of last week’s devastating tsunami, and the government asked the US military to help it send war-hardened doctors to the disaster zone.

About a dozen medics and a planeload of medicine and equipment would leave for India and Sri Lanka as soon as possible, the Defence Ministry said.

“We have our own problems, but we are part of the family of nations,” said ministry spokesman Gen Zaher Mohammed Azimi. “The people of Afghanistan are saddened by this disaster.”

It won’t be long until we hear the same kind of stories coming out of Iraq, which is why the insurgents and terrorists continue their doomed bombings, kidnappings, and assasinations. As Iraq becomes a democracy, then the potential for doing good in that region will be unlimited.