The most astonishing example of the global inroads being made by Muslim blasphemy codes may well be found in a deepening controversy over the Bible translations for many Muslim cultures by Wycliffe, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), and some other Bible translators.
Ostensibly to placate Muslim sensibilities, they removed the words “Father,” “Son,” and “Son of God” to describe the Trinitarian nature of God in the New Testament, using instead, at least for the Arabic and Turkish copies, the terms “Allah,” and “Messiah.” The Christian Post provides an example from Matthew 28:19: “Instead of ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ [the text] becomes ‘Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.’”
This is not a new controversy among scholars of Christian missionary work (Christianity Today wrote a cover story, “The Son and the Crescent,” about it a year ago) but, over the past few weeks, it has inspired mounting protests on Christian websites and a petition to the translators is now posted for signatures by a consortium of Christian missionaries and leaders.
Wycliffe, an interdenominational Protestant organization dedicated to translating the Bible into all living languages, posted a response on its website on February 7 that is less than reassuring. An excerpt of which states:
Wycliffe USA is grateful to all those who have expressed their questions and concerns regarding reports that we have been removing “Father” and “Son” from certain Bible translations, particularly in Muslim cultures. . . . While we have never intentionally sponsored a translation that neglects to properly communicate the divine familial terms, some observers have raised concerns about whether our methodology has consistently met our goal. We are listening to those concerns and are seeking God’s guidance as we re-evaluate our methodology and investigate to ensure that our commitment to accurate and clear translation is being reflected in every project. We are engaged in meaningful conversations with partner organizations, constituents, and church leaders to evaluate our standards, and expect to be prepared to issue a more complete statement soon.
Hopefully, some of those who have commented from the Muslim world itself will be among those Wycliffe and the others listen to.
A former Muslim writes: “Such terms were equally offensive and problematic for Jews in the 1st Century were they not? And yet Jesus used them anyway and God inspired His apostles to do so. And still there was explosive church growth amidst the Jews in the 1st Century. Why should Muslims of today be any different? Indeed, the very fact that God is Jesus’ Father, Jesus is God the Son, and God can be called our Father is what is so attractive about the Gospel.”
A Turkish pastor argues: “Already Muslims in my country believe that the Bible is changed by men and these mission agencies are making it harder for us!”
Another pastor in Turkey makes a common-sense proposal: “Rather than changing the meaning of the Biblical terms and give reason to those Muslims who accuse Christians of adulterating the Scriptures, why not simply put a footnote to clarify that ‘Father’ does not refer to a biological father and ‘Son’ does not refer to a biological son?”
He then goes on to reveal another very disturbing fact about some translations: “But for me the worst thing in this translation is that this ‘Matthew’ started with a quote of the Koran and that the translation is full of footnotes with quotes of the Koran, as if it was the highest authority to decide what is true and what false.”
Since it was founded in the 1940s, Wycliffe has done extraordinary work in making the Bibles and New Testament accessible in hundreds of the world’s tongues, in many places bringing for the first time the Good News of the Gospels, and in the process promoting literacy. Translating sacred texts is often an art as much as a science and scholars have continuously debated the fine points of theology inherent in the translating process throughout Christian history. But, with these Arabic, Turkish, and other Bible translations tailored for Muslim cultures, one wonders, who is converting whom?
— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author, with Paul Marshall, of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedoms Worldwide (Oxford University Press, November 2011).
This is a truly sad day. If Wycliffe has reached the point of caving like this, I fear for the entire evangelical movement. Or, rather, I fear for it even more than I already did in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's seems probable that these changes are not based in syncretism, but accommodation. I'm willing to believe that Wycliffe is trying to make a version that will reach out to Muslim seekers and bring them to Christ. You do have to translate into a culture as well as a language. With that said, I agree with the critics that warn against changing the message. Those who will take offense will not be deterred by these changes; the Gospel will not become more palatable by accommodating Muslim perspectives. I believe that the accuracy should always trump accommodation.
I'm a deacon, and on the Missions committee at my church. This won't make me stop supporting Wycliffe, but it may make us look twice and more closely consider support in the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's total nonsense about "culture" and "accommodation". The Muslim culture and language has "father" and "son" as any human culture and language do. They are universals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm all for becoming all things to all people. But there is no way that can take precedence over rightly handling the Word.
It is the Word of God, after all. Only a great fool would think he could improve it. And who thought that Muslims could be converted by fooling them into thinking that Christianity was more or less like the religion they already have?
This is a bad, bad idea. Whoever at Wycliffe thought it was a good idea needs to be purged from the organization. I'm not kidding. There are specific warnings in Scripture regarding putting man's wisdom in judgement over what is written there. Woe to him who does it...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe bible is its own authority. All reasoning must begin with axioms. The bible says it is God's word (and it is God's word), so we go from there. The doctrine of the Trinity flows from revelation of both the OT and NT. It isn't found in one verse, but the church worked this doctrine out (again from scripture) in the early centuries of its founding.
Allah to my understanding is a Unitarian god. Putting Allah in the place of the Father means the the Messiah and the Spirit are not God. Running counter to the doctrine of the deity and humanity of Christ worked out in the centuries after the the Trinity was worked out.
When Jesus gave his commission to disciple the world, very little of it had the true knowledge of God. Yet in the next few centuries the gods had given way to God, and their temples were in ruins. No false notion of God will stand forever against his Word.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut God told them to do it. It says it right there in the statement. Does NRO know better than God?
By the way, I loved the reference to "Muslim blasphemy codes"? Is that longhand for Islam? Well, I'm sure they feel the same about you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would not assume all of these changes are "accommodations". There are some words that communicate better. As a member of a local church that intentionally looks to reach out to Muslims, we have come under fire for using the word Allah in that context. Allah, for example, is the Arabic word for God, just as Dios is Spanish. I would hope that these concerns are as unfounded. It is good that Wycliffe is taking the concern seriously, and can either change or communicate them better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is translated as "Allah, His Messiah, and His Holy Spirit"? How cloyingly, pathetically bankrupt is their demonstration of (non)Faith.
The whole idea is just beyond sensible thought. I feel like I've awakened and found myself in Bizarro world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow sad that a great translation ministry is so muddled and damaging its hard earned reputation in the process. Thanks for posting this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a doc coming out that talks about this issue and both Muslim and Christian groups in Bangaldesh opposing these versions.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, "Allah" is a historical term for a historical (local) god, a "moon god," which gained new qualities and subsequent fame because of Mohammed's achievements. Allah is in no way comparable to the Creator described in Genesis. It would seem to be as wrong for a Christian to call I-AM-WHO-I-AM by the name of "Allah" as it is for Muslims to redefine Allah to coincide with I-AM-WHO-I-AM. I've always supported Wycliffe, but to use the two names interchangeably is a very short-sighted decision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseElrond: "And Saruman, you tell us, has betrayed us. Our list of allies grows thin."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat Turkish pastor's proposal to plactate the critics by clarifying that Son doesn't mean biological son and Father doesn't mean biological Father may indeed be "common sense" but it can hardly be described as Christian. Son does indeed mean son, that's the whole point. Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph the carpenter, he was the actual Son of God. Father is a little more complicated as the Holy Spirit rather than God the Father is really the biological father of the Son, but that distinction is probably even "worse" from an accomodating Islam sensibilities POV.
I find it amazing that a Christian clergyman of any denomination could say that all we have to do to avoid strife is change our beliefs to where the Son is no longer the son of God but just a man, presumably the prophet Isa.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth Islam and Christianity regularly adopt and deny parts of the Original Testament for their own means. They base their existence on the Original Testament and then claim to supersede it. Neither are credible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor instance, Shabbat changed to their Sun-g-o-d day for the Christians
and the Muslims claim Avraham as father but then they call for the death of his biological children.
Why not look at the whole story at www.wycliffe.org/SonofGod.aspx :
Wycliffe remains committed to the same objectives we've held sacred for 80 years: accurate and clear translation of Scripture. Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.
Wycliffe personnel are committed to working alongside language communities and other partners to translate God’s Word with great care from the original languages of Scripture into the languages of the world’s people so that all may know the redeeming love and glory of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Come on, National Review, you can do better...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk so I reached out to some friends, and did I ever earn an ear full on this one. I thought it was just an intriguing discussion item. Well here is from Wycliffe USA:
We would appreciate your prayers regarding our work and ministry. In his role as President of SIL International, John is in the middle of preparing for the SIL International Conference held every four years. It will be held from April 30th to May 9th this year. It will join with Wycliffe International's conference to be held at the same time and place (Thailand).
There will be around 500 people in attendance from around the world. The SIL Conference will have around 200 of the 500 as active participants.
In the middle of preparing for this event and attending to other day to day matters, there has recently been a flurry of attacks on Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL International from some Christians who have their particular perspective on how Bible translation should be done. You may be aware of these recent accusations that appeared on the internet against Wycliffe and SIL International.
The language used in attacking us is exaggerated and the charges are largely untrue. The only charges that were true had already been addressed some time ago out of deference to those with a different opinion on what certain translations should use. However, the accusers apparently saw an opportunity to attack Wycliffe and SIL and make their point by using the internet and sensational journalism, even if the charges they make no longer are valid or never were valid. This event has been a major distraction for John but even more so for the Executive Director of SIL International and the leadership of Wycliffe.
In less sensational language the charge is made that we are intentionally omitting from translations such key terms as "Son of God" and "Father".
These accusations are unfounded and appear to be intentional misrepresentations of our programs in very sensitive contexts. It involves only about 30 translation programs out of the over 1,550 that we are involved in. But the populations of these 30 languages amount to millions of people. The sensitivity of the contexts makes it difficult to publicly respond without compromising the security of those involved in those translation programs. In addition, we have no desire to enter in a war of words on the internet. (You can read Wycliffe USA's statement below. It is accessible from their web page, but I have pasted it below for you.)
One thing that is disappointing is to see how easily some Christians believe what the accusers have written on the internet. Some people seem to have a limited ability to question what they read on the internet. So this makes the issue more complicated. In addition, the process of translation is highly technical and this adds to the complication. I guess those who do not know Wycliffe or do not trust Wycliffe for whatever reason are ready to believe these kinds of reports. This is not the first time.
One result of this unjustified action is that it has caused our leaders to spend an enormous amount of time trying to set the record straight, and simply remind people of our commitment to the Trinity: Father, Son and Spirit. Our intent is to translate these concepts accurately and clearly where we are involved.
If you need more information please let us know. We can send you additional reading material and links to material at Wycliffe.
In the midst of the swirl of accusations, we would invite you to pray for us that we in Wycliffe and SIL will engage in this matter by humbling ourselves before the Lord and seeking to understand what his desires and purposes are in this event. We know he is sovereign and the organizations of Wycliffe and SIL International belong to him and not to us. We need humility and a contrite heart. We need to be convicted of any pride and arrogance, and any anger and self-righteousness that are in our lives. We need to seek God's wisdom and discernment. We desire to see the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians
5:22-23) demonstrated in our lives in relating to our accusers. We want God to fulfill his purposes in us and for us through this event and to bless our accusers for God's kingdom's sake.
Most important is God's glory and we want to be acceptable and pleasing in his sight in this matter. This involves discernment and it is not always easy to see the way forward. Only secondarily we recognize that we also need to care for the significant asset that God has given his church in the form of Wycliffe Bible Translators and SIL International. As leaders we need to be responsible for the asset.
As I wrote above, we recognize that God is sovereign in all things, and above all else we desire his purposes to be fulfilled through all of the pain caused by these accusations. No doubt we need to grow in our own spiritual maturity and this is an opportunity for us to do so. We recognize that God and his glory matter the most, and not the reputation of our organizations or our own personal comfort and reputation. In what God has given us to do, we want to be faithful and responsible for the trust God has given us in the ministry of translating his word for the peoples of the earth.
These attacks come out of the USA, so Wycliffe USA is the one most in the limelight and in need of prayer and wisdom. Wycliffe USA released the following statement today, found at External Link
"Wycliffe USA remains committed to the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture in the original languages, and therefore is committed to translating the Scriptures in ways that communicate accurately. Wycliffe USA is committed to preserving the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and His relationship with the Father in every translation in such a way that communicates accurately and clearly.
for more information.
"In recent weeks, the debate over the translation of the divine familial terms (words translated into English as Son of God, Son, and Father) has grown. It is the policy of Wycliffe USA that the literal translation of divine familial terms be given preference. If the accuracy of the meaning would be lost when using a literal translation, Wycliffe USA, along with SIL, has sought to provide clear guidance for the translation teams. It is this allowance, in rare cases, that is the point of debate. While Wycliffe USA believes this approach has allowed for accurate and clear translation of the divine familial terms, the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks deserve prayerful consideration.
"Wycliffe USA applauds the decision by SIL International leaders
(06-Feb-2012) to 'put on hold our approval of publication of translated Scripture around which this criticism is focused' for a season, while intentionally seeking 'a fuller dialogue with our many partners globally and benefit from their input to [SIL's] approach in Scripture translation related to this issue.'
"Wycliffe USA and SIL have agreed to submit to a review of these specific Bible translation practices. Both organizations will participate in this conversation, but neither will control it. The formal review will be led by respected theologians, biblical scholars, translators, linguists, and missiologists from the global Church. We expect this review to produce a report that will guide future Wycliffe USA and SIL translation efforts.
"Wycliffe USA and SIL are committed to transparency in this process, and to keeping our partners, supporters, staff, and the public apprised of its progress. Please see our commonly asked questions at External Link
"We are grateful for the many people who have raised questions and concerns about this issue, as they have provided an opportunity for Wycliffe USA and our partners to ensure that our commitment to accuracy and clarity is being fulfilled. Doing so has demonstrated their love for God's Word, for Bible translation, and for those who do not yet have access to God's Word in the language and form that will serve them best. We invite others to participate by writing to response@wycliffe.org ."
Thanks for your love, prayers, encouragement and support over these many years.
Partnering together to take the Word of God to peoples of the world, John and Kathie Watters
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear WebScholar:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do confess that I have to get past your name which might imply a certain intellectual hubris on your part. I hope I am wrong. I think Jesus would have called himself a servant first.
Lots of words on your part. What do I read? Defend, defend, defend. This kind of works with some of the Wycliffe statements that first came out as deny, deny, deny.
With all due respect, your attempts to gain pity for the Wycliffe that is under so-called attack are a perfect ploy to distract from the quest for truth.
Fact. An SIL translator behind your "firewall" of so-called danger zone---I lived in one of those as well---advised that a footnotes for a text that "bridges Christian and Muslim worldviews" include pbuh after the name Christ. What does that mean? It means that Christ now has the "peace and blessing upon him" which is what Muslims always say after the name Muhammad. What does that mean. It means that now you prayer a prayer for Christ that peace and blessing would be upon Him, when in fact He is the Prince of Peace, He is the Blessed One.
Excuse my French, webscholar, but all of your alligator tears are just that. SIL people are helping to Islamize the Word of God, and they should be brought to account. If this takes your leadership's time, it is high time. "What has been done in the dark will be shouted from the housetops." Trust me, there is much more that could be and will be brought to light.
Shalom.
Salaam,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou criticize Webscholar for what? These aren't his words. He did his research and came up with the truth. Isn't truth what we are interested in?
Let he who has no faults cast the first stone.
Shalom
Leastofthese,
The whole issue revolves around what the facts are. Webscholar passed on one point of view--not "truth". Which is the central problem in this. Wycliffe is apparently struggling to clearly communicate its policies and involvement with translations that do not use linguistic equivalents of "father" and "son" which all cultures have. Fathers and sons are not substantively different in Muslim cultures than in other cultures. So explaining why the use of those terms in direct translation is problematical for them has become an issue.
As far back as the 1st century gnostics (not to mention the Jews) people had problems with God having a physical son. The Church has, through many persecutions and difficulties, maintained that Jesus is indeed God's son physically (as well as eternally) and not just by adoption. How it happened is a mystery, but Mary is "theotokos"--mother of the divine nature as well as the human nature.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse