I received a very encouraging comment from Greg this morning on this post. I wanted to share it with you because I think many people may find themselves in Greg’s position.
I grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church. Guess which translation we used. When I was a senior in high school, I gave my mother a heart attack (not literally, but almost) when I joined a Southern Baptist church. My translation of choice then and throughout college and seminary was the NIV. When the ESV was published, I couldn’t adopt it quickly enough. I never liked the NIV because I thought (and still think) the translation was a little too loose. Perhaps that will be corrected in the 2011 update.
Two things kept me from adopting the HCSB when it was published, although I liked it very much from the start:
- it had only been about 2 or 3 years since I changed translations and I didn’t want to do it again, and
- I didn’t want to think of myself as a SBC “fanboy.”
I owned a few copies of the HCSB; I just rarely picked them up.
I hold to Reformed doctrine, so the fact that all of the modern “heroes” vociferously approved of the ESV gave me great comfort. But I always thought that Holman had done the best job of any Bible publisher at laying out the page. They simply hit a home run there with typography and textual aids. The ESV, on the other hand, was simply text (albeit good text) printed on the page with little visual appeal.
Still, the HCSB’s stigma as the Southern Baptist Bible held me back. Now, after about 48 hours straight of researching (much of which was aided by your site), I have made the decision that the ESV will move to the back burner as a comparative translation and the HCSB will be the translation I carry around with me and teach from.
I was unaware that there was an update coming. I’m glad to see it. I kind of liked the brackets (I understand your argument against them, but at least liked to have the information they provide) and I wish they had footnoted 1 Cor 13:8 (#4 above mentions that this would be the case, but unfortunately they decided against it; I would probably categorize that as one of the only “Baptist biases” in this translation). But the other updates seem to be a nice improvement.
Thanks for the help in making this decision. It’s not one I took lightly and it was a much harder decision than I thought it would be.
And in a follow-up email, Greg wrote this:
Just wanted to say thanks for your posts on the HCSB and for making a Reformed guy not feel so awkward for using something other than the ESV.
Speaking of the visible church as our “mother,” Calvin writes this in his Institutes:
There is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance…. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation…. God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.
One thing that is highly evident from Calvin’s remarks here is that he was not an American. With our rugged individualism and tendency to treat the church like an optional part of Christian life, we would do well to move back towards a Calvin’s high ecclesiology. If he is right, then our eternal salvation is at stake!
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion
, John Calvin devotes a very significant amount of space to the Church. In Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 9, Calvin discusses deacons and divides them into two functional groups:
- those who “serve the church in administering the affairs of the poor”
- those who serve the church “in caring for the poor themselves”
It is to this second group that Calvin insists Paul places the widows he mentions in 1 Timothy 5:9-10:
No widow should be placed on the official support list unless she is at least 60 years old, has been the wife of one husband, and is well known for good works —that is, if she has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the saints’ feet, helped the afflicted, and devoted herself to every good work.
Calvin insists that women could fill the public office of deacon in the second group. That is, women could be deacons–in Calvin’s mind–only if they served in caring for the poor. Calvin was by no means a women’s rights activist. In fact he makes it clear that this is the only public office a woman can hold.
However, he does make this allowance for female deacons. So even in the Reformed tradition women were allowed to be deacons.
So when the Central Carolina Presbytery of the PCA overtured General Assembly this year to prohibit women deacons, I have to wonder if they’ve ever read this section in Calvin’s Institutes.
According to Mrs. Elizabeth Smith, it would seem so.
I’ve gotten spam emails from Nigeria before claiming I’ve won some lottery that I never entered, or that some government agency wants to give me millions of dollars. But this is the first time I’ve ever been told that it was the sovereign leading of God granting me instant wealth! Here’s the email:
Dear Beloved.
I am Mrs. Elizabeth Smith an aging widow suffering from long time illness. I have some funds I inherited from my late husband, the sum of US$14,400,000.00 and I needed a very honest and God fearing Christian that will use the fund for God’s work, I found your email address from the internet and decided to contact you. Please if you would be able to use the funds for the Lord’s work, kindly reply for further details.
Yours in the Lord,
Mrs. Elizabeth Smith
Wow! Out of all the people on the Internet it must have been God’s sovereignty that directed her to me, a truly honest and God-fearing Christian. With results like this, why would anyone NOT believe in God’s sovereignty?
