Does Lifeway's decision to sell the NNIV fly in the face of the SBC? by Peter Lumpkins

Marty King reported last week that Lifeway would continue selling the new New International Version of Scripture even after the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Az. past a resolution against it. A special task force assigned by Lifeway made the recommendation to the full board of trustees to continue selling the disputed volume¹  >>>

Meeting Feb. 13-14 at LifeWay offices in downtown Nashville, trustees heard a report from a special task force appointed to follow up on a non-binding resolution approved by the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention that requested LifeWay consider not selling the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible in their stores.

Committee chairman Adam Greenway, a member of First Baptist Church in Mt. Washington, Ky., told the board "vast amounts of scholarly research and other relevant information was gathered and studied … and a number of subject matter experts addressed the task force" (link added) 

Siding with Lifeway on the decision denying the convention's request that the disputed version not be made available in Lifeway stores included Jimmy Draper, George Guthrie, Russell Moore,  and Al Mohler. Draper preceded Thom Rainer as the Lifeway's CEO while Guthrie is Professor of Bible at Union University, Jackson, TN. Moore and Greenway are professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and, of course, Al Mohler is the president. Additionally, Dr. Moore spoke against the resolution as a member of the resolutions committee² that first rejected the resolution at the Phoenix assembly. Concerning the decision, Dr. Greenway added:

It is not that we are endorsing the 2011 NIV... We endorse what we publish, and the translation we publish is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. That is the translation that we endorse.... We do not believe the 2011 NIV rises to the level to where it should be pulled or censored or not carried in our retail chain

Unfortunately, King did not report any response from the trustees concerning the 2011 SBC resolution in Phoenix expressing disapproval of the version. King did quote Greenway suggesting messengers to the 2011 SBC annual meeting were encouraged to vote for the resolution based on "incorrect information." The 2011 resolution specifically stated:

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores

And while all resolutions are "non-binding" as King characterized the 2011 NIV resolution, resolutions nonetheless indicate the convention's voice no matter how "non-binding" and faint the voice might be. Indeed Dr. Mohler captured the essence of resolutions while editor of The Christian Index. Of the nature of resolutions, Mohler said:

"Given our polity, it is resolutions through which the Southern Baptist Convention speaks its mind, its heart and its convictions" (R.  Albert Mohler  Jr.,  editor  of  The Christian Index, newsjournal of the Georgia Baptist Convention, The Baptist Press, June 10, 1992) 

Perhaps Lifeway's task force which considered the NNIV issue should have weighed Mohler's respectful understanding of annual resolutions of an earlier era. I suppose the 2011 convention's mind, heart, and convictions were fallaciously expressed on "incorrect information."      

Note also King framed the resolution in the Baptist Press piece in more tentative language than the resolution actually passed by convention messengers in Phoenix. King says the resolution requested that LifeWay "consider not selling the New International Version (NIV) 2011 Bible in their stores." As one can see from the wording of the resolution above, messengers did not ask Lifeway to consider not selling the disputed version; instead messengers respectfully requested that Lifeway not make the disputed version available. Period. It did not request that Lifeway form a task force and "consider" the issue. Yet what does Lifeway do?  It appoints a task force to "consider" a matter on which the convention had definitively spoken, spoken its mind, its heart, and its conviction. 

For my part, it's difficult to interpret Lifeway's action as other than just another corporate, top-down decision on the part of executives Southern Baptists have handed authority, an authority far too often nowadays becoming smoke blown back in the faces of Southern Baptist people, and that even when the trustees are involved. One wonders what ever happened to the respect SBC leaders once had for the annual Southern Baptist Convention and the resolutions it produced, respect spoken well by Al Mohler in 1992.

And, while we once again grant that resolutions cannot be considered absolutely binding on our entities and organizations of the Southern Baptist Convention, nonetheless, there was a time in our history when we held more respect when the body spoke.

We must also consider just how often Southern Baptists attempt to tell Lifeway how to run its affairs or formally question the business decisions it makes. Considering the full sweep of the historical relationship between the convention and Lifeway, the answer must be almost never. Yet, when an exception to our common practice of leaving Lifeway to pursue its profitable enterprise arises, we do not expect to be rebuffed so decisively as Lifeway managed to do with the disputed version of Scripture the convention floor respectfully requested them not to make available in Lifeway stores. 

With that, I am...

Peter

¹according to a September 2011 report in Baptist Press, members of the task force were Adam Greenway (chairman); Montia Setzler (sitting chairman of Lifeway trustees); Cliff Knight (Alabama pastor); Dallas attorney, Michael Deahl; Mark Dance, Arkansas pastor

²Baptist Press listed the 2011 SBC Resolutions Committee appointed by President Bryant Wright

Comments

[JND]

"For my part, it's difficult to interpret Lifeway's action as other than just another corporate, top-down decision on the part of executives Southern Baptists have handed authority, an authority far too often nowadays becoming smoke blown back in the faces of Southern Baptist people, and that even when the trustees are involved."

I completely agree. Weren't there some Moderates who said this sort of thing would happen?

As always, thanks for making comments possible. I enjoy the exchanges.

[Bruce Oyen]

Peter, thanks much for the postings and links about the 2011 NIV! I used that info for a posting on my own blog spot: http://biblicalfoodforthought.blogspot.com/2012/02/about-2011-new-international-version.html

[Walter]

It think I remember that Dr. Mohler originally said he regretted that the resolution included LifeWay. Sounds like he is not a fan of the translation but by supporting LifeWay's position to carry, thinks people are smart enough to decide for themselves.

[CASEY]

PETER...you've got a lot of influence and persuasion. When Marty King calls Dr. Mohler and Dr. Patterson...would it be possible for you to get me in on that 'conference call' ?
:)

[peter lumpkins]

Bruce,

You are welcome!!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bruce Oyen]

Thanks for telling me to follow the links, Peter!

[peter lumpkins]

All,

A brother sent me this link to a piece in the USATODAY. Once again, our brother Marty King kinda traps himself with the language he apparently uses, or at least reported by the journalists:

Marty King, spokesman for LifeWay, said a committee of trustees reviewed the NIV to decide whether it was acceptable. Under Southern Baptist rules, he said, they were not required to comply with the resolution, and representatives at the annual meeting had inaccurate information about the translation.

He is correct that Lifeway is/was not “required to comply” with a resolution. But they’d be utterly foolish to continue using this line, especially when they have managed to earn a reputation in many circles of catering to profitability rather than their SBC roots.

More importantly, to continue suggesting the messengers were poorly informed indicating a fundamental ignorance as a basis for the positive vote not only implies unbecoming images of the SBC voting body, but also ignores that both Patterson and Mohler unequivocally agreed with the resolution and fully supported it (Mohler’s one caveat had to do with addressing Lifeway so “directly” but had nothing to do with the translation reservations expressed by the resolution itself, reservations which Mohler explicitly said personally “reflected his concerns”).

I wonder if our brother Marty King has called Drs Patterson and Mohler to express his sorrow that their support for the resolution was based on ignorance of sound scholarship concerning the NNIV—i.e., “incorrect information.” :^0... :^)

With that, I am…

Peter  

[peter lumpkins]

Bruce,

Follow the links I gave. Stinson offers reasons for his reservations in the BP piece. More importantly the CBMW link offers scholarly materials. But if Burk's paper I linked won't do the trick, I'm not sure I know what you're looking for.

Grace, Bruce.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bruce Oyen]

Thanks for THAT info, Peter. But I am looking for a link to an analysis of that shows why the 2011 NIV should not be considered reliable. The SBC resolution made a good point about pastors, and I am a pastor, educating their congregations about the problems with gender-neutralism. So, the link could help many of us do just that. FYI: I pastor an independent Baptist church, and am a member of the Independent Fundamental Churches Of America, International. In 2002, the IFCA, International passed a resolution against an earlier gender-neutral NIV

[peter lumpkins]

Bruce,

What I find highly interesting is, Baptist Press’s article which announced the task force’s recommendation and trustees’ decision to continue selling the 2011 NIV cited scholars who thought the SBC used “incorrect information” to vote for the Phoenix resolution—Greenway, Moore, Mohler, Guthrie, the three former of which are from Southern. However, Baptist Press did not alert us to the scholars who embraced reservations toward the 2011 NIV, scholars also at Southern seminary.

CBMW president and dean of the school of church ministries at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Randy Stinson, had severe reservations, as did the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. In addition, former Boyce Dean and present Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce, Denny Burk, wrote an academic paper detailing his reservations concerning the 2011 NIV. For Baptist Press to report only the scholarship which suggested Southern Baptists voted on “incorrect information” is questionable, at best. Indeed Southern seminary’s faculty was split on it, for pete’s sake.

More egregious still, Baptist Press didn’t bother to inform us that Al Mohler apparently changed his mind about the 2011 NIV. In June, 2011, after the resolution, Baptist Press ran a story which stated Paige Patterson and Al Mohler’s approval of the resolution:

Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say messengers were right to pass the resolution and take a stand against what the language calls "gender neutral methods of translation"

Mohler also reportedly said in the same issue (emphasis added):

I would not second guess the Resolutions Committee, and I certainly know their conviction on these issues. But once that resolution was brought to the floor, Southern Baptists simply had to support it, and support it overwhelmingly, on the basis of the fact that what it said was patently true and did reflect the established concerns of Southern Baptists… .

The resolution, Mohler said, reflected his concerns "related to the gender issue and specifically related to the linkage between a verbal plenary understanding of inspiration and the importance of an accurate and formal translation"

So we had to support it based upon what the task force calls now “incorrect information”? Was the resolution’s content “patently true” like Dr. Mohler said after the convention, suggesting explicitly that the resolution “reflected his concerns,” or was Dr. Mohler duped as well? What of his other professors'--Stinson and Burk--views? Did they give Southern Baptists--not to mention Drs. Mohler and Patterson--"incorrect information"?

Something just doesn’t add up with this.

Hope this is helpful, my brother Bruce.

With that, I am…

Peter   

[Mary]

".....suggest we publish the whole list of the Board of Trustees and then vote them all out in one slate or at least all we can in this convention or at the appropriate time..."

Lifeway's is not the only BOT we need to vote out. We need to get back control of the seminaries.

Bruce, if you are interested in the NNIV google Denny Burk's blog - he's written and linked to some good sources.

[Bruce Oyen]

Peter, can you give a link to an analysis of the 2011 NIV, which gives reasons for using it with caution? It certainly would be appreciated.

[volfan007]

What's the most troubling about this whole deal is what Robert Masters shared with us, here; when he said that several VP's and employees go to Church with him, and they're quick to remind him that THEY ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO THE SBC. Wow! This kind of understanding on the behalf of Lifeway employees is very concerning and troubling.

The SBC owns Lifeway. And, to hear Vice Presidents and employees and Ryan Abernathy saying things like this is concerning. So, they actually think that they can do whatever they want to do....no matter what the will of the SBC is???????? Incredible.

David

[Donald Holmes]

Didn't something similar happen concerning "The Shack"

[Howell Scott]

The GCRTF Recommendations, per Dr. Mohler, were non-binding on the trustees of the various entities. In other words, about as powerful as a resolution. It seems some resolutions/recommendations have a more persuasive voice than others. The hypocrisy, while not surprising, is nevertheless stunning. Expect more of this in the future unless and until grassroots Southern Baptists put a stop to it! Thanks and God bless,

Howell

[Robert I Masters]

Peter,
This move does not surprise me at all. Several vice presidents and a number of employees attend the same church I do. They are always quick to remind me that Lifeway is not beholden to the messengers of the SBC.
One my elders whom you know as "Louis" has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent anything negative from being said about anything Lifeway.
He also works as an attorney.!
I suggest we publish the whole list of the Board of Trustees and then vote them all out in one slate or at least all we can in this convention or at the appropriate time.

Robert I Masters

[Bruce Oyen]

Peter, I am new to your blog spot and like it. I first read about it on David Brumbelow's blog. Sometime back, I read your book on alcoholic beverages. It is good. I hope it gets a wide reading. But to my main point: I had not heard of the 2011 NIV until you brought it up. So, I went to a bookseller's website and learned that it is, in my view, too much of a gender-neutral translation. Maybe that is why you wrote about it. Here is a link to the bookseller's comparisons between the 1984 edition and the 2011 edition: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=73542&sp=57355&event=1003NIV11|2550768|112344

[Mary]

Peter, see what happens when you change names? Ryan probably doesn't have a clue the name of Lifeway before it was Lifeway. But yeah not beholden to the convention - a hoot!

[peter lumpkins]

Ryan,

Yes we are aware Lifeway takes no money from the SBC. What's troubling is, you apparently are not aware that Lifeway belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention. Hence, your assertion that Lifeway is "in no way beholden to the Convention especially in matters of what they stock" is absolutely stunning.

Now, unless you can refrain from logging your unnecessary insults, you are free to read but stay in the background please.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Walter,

In all due respect, but this is the biggest spin I have seen since Bill Clinton said he did not inhale. I understand you think that LifeWay Trustees did the right thing, but your premise on them doing is is hugely flawed. The trustees of the entities are not there to protect the entity from the people who own it. They are there to perform their fiduciary responsibility to make certain the entity performs what the people who own it tells them. It is the voice of the people in the pew that prevail.

Also, if this would have been such "an embarrassing situation for the SBC", it looks as if the CBMW has a red face too? They have taken a clear stand on this issue and Lifeway has now stated they do not honor that position.

Blessings,
Tim

[CASEY]

Walter.,..don't you think it prudent and for that matter required(fiduciary responsibility) of the Lifeway Trustees
to tell us how we voted on "bad information". I have requested a copy of the "Study Committee's Report"...but so far I have been told it's 'not available' or "they're not sure if it will be made available"....read that, elitists(again). Southern Baptists are tired of this! Do you not think that the close ties of Southern and those acting as editors/advisors on the original NNIV might have a conflict of interest in reviewing their own work....or the work of close associates? Me thinketh the peasants thinketh more than the elites(thanks MARY for that suggestion!).....

[Ryan Abernathy]

Ummmm...you guys do realize that Lifeway takes NO money from the convention and actually contributes money to the Cooperative Program.

They are in no way beholden to the Convention especially in matters of what they stock. Just another example of Mr. Lumpkins trying to stir up a fight where one does not exist.

Thanks for reminding me why I rarely read or comment here anymore, Peter.

[Walter]

It is situations like this show the wisdom of the SBC in appointing trustess to oversee the work of it's entities. The vote was taken with little discussion and based on false information such as the absolutely incorrect accusation that the gender of God was changed in the NIV. Inflammatory incorrect information like this made assured the resolution would pass. It was an excellent decision to actually take the time to study the issues and not make decisions based on emotion and false information. If the messengers would have had all the facts I am sure they would have reached the same conclusion as those they elected to represent them (LifeWay trustees). A resolution requires no action, but LifeWay, instead of ignoring the request, took the responsible position and investigated the concerns and came to a conclusion based on facts. Respected conservative Bible scholars and those who have spent their lives studying Bible translation disagree with the resolution. I'm glad cooler heads prevailed in what could have been another embarrassing situation for the SBC.

[CASEY]

Excellent points PETER....but, do we conclude from this that LIFEWAY can "pick and choose" what Southern Baptists instruct them about? If so, can they ignore our past statements on the inerrancy of Scripture, homosexuality, abortion, alcohol and church leadership? If it's all about $$$$$$$, as some suggest, then they have left us with only one option....buy our materials somewhere else until they 'get in line' with Southern Baptist grassroots thinking.
I would like to 'thank' LIFEWAY for one thing....stirring up Bible believing Southern Baptists to go to NEW ORLEANS for a 'real change'. We may be able to credit them for adding 3,000+ more messengers to the great city of N.O.

[Mary]

Well, that oughta teach the peasants. Thinking without permission and passing a resolution that hadn't been approved by the elite. Don't they know about elder rule?

Has there been an edict passed down about shunning those who passed this resolution causing all the confusion and leading some to think messangers voting at the convention actually means something still?

[Joe Blackmon]

Lifeway's mission statement should be changed to a line from that immortal poet lauret of the American Urban landscape, P Diddy, which said:

"It's all about the Benjamins, baby".
It's All About the Benjamins
No Way Out (1997)
Bad Boy Records.