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 .