Hypocritical

 

Driving down the street in India is shocking. The noise is overwhelming, the speed, the smells, the variety of vehicles moving at different speeds, the amount of people crowded together, but most surprising is the stray cows. I was there to visit my sister years ago when I saw the cows wandering wherever they wanted because the cow is worshipped in India. It is not protected from cars it is let free. Dairy farmers can’t kill the cows so they are often skeletal because the law forbids it or because the Mother Cow Protectors will kill anyone who hurts the cow.

The complex issue of the Sacred Cow makes me think of another issue of which I know a great deal more.

Bible Translation

Wycliffe Associates has a sacred cow of their own, the literal translation of Son of God. They have anointed themselves the Sacred Scripture Protectors. They appear willing to commit acts of relationship-breaking, distortion of the facts, and abandonment of accurate scripture in order to protect the Sacred Scripture of the Son of God.

You might think this doesn’t sound so bad. They are protecting the scripture after all. I believe that is exactly what they want you to think. In the words of WA president Bruce Smith, "literal translation of Father and Son of God is not negotiable.” There are, however, a few problems which arise out of this black and white mandate.

Breaking Relationships

According to Christianity Today,

Wycliffe Associates cited several reasons for its decision, starting with controversy over the language used to describe Jesus. In some Bible translations, the language of Jesus’ relationship to God the Father is softened to stem confusion and anger from Muslims who mistakenly believe this means that God engaged in sexual relations with Mary.^[i]

The controversy swirling around Son of God was settled, publicly and completely, by 2013. I asked at the end of the previous chapter why it was that WA chose to leave the Wycliffe Global Alliance three full years after the issue had been settled, three full years after WGA said, “WGA now has a system of protocols in place ensuring that potentially questionable translation terms are referred to the WEA.”[ii]

I must tell you I don’t have a good answer for why they waited three years, except that it seems to be a good causa repudii – a reason for divorce from their partner of nearly five decades; a reason to justify breaking a very important relationship.

After all, how many Christians are willing to disagree that the Sacred Scripture isn’t worth protecting? How many of them are brave enough to argue with the method, especially when presented by an organization bearing the Wycliffe name? Isn’t disagreeing at all a form of heresy? I’m not being glib or sarcastic when I ask this. How many good Christians, especially those with little knowledge of translation, will even question WA? Not many, and WA’s use of the name ‘Wycliffe’ is an abuse of the trust good Christians place in that name. WA is abusing those relationships.

Distortion of Facts

The perspective from the Wycliffe Global Alliance is different than what WA portrays, 

“WGA said that Wycliffe Associates had been in discussions regarding ‘deepening relationships and changing structures’ and that its leadership was encouraged by their progress. However, it said, Wycliffe Associates ‘decided to end affiliation with the Alliance and made their decision public before informing us. Their publicly stated reasons for leaving were not among the issues under consideration.’”[iii]

Why is WA's public voice so different than their private voice? A reasonable explanation, at least based on what facts I have, is that they wanted to pursue MAST, and they wanted to become a frontline translation organization, but felt that WBT would hold them back.

If Wycliffe Associates considers a literal translation of the Biblical concepts of Father and Son of God as being “…not negotiable…,” why does the MAST process treat the entire balance of scripture in such a subjective, haphazard manner? It is a mystery to me. "The rate of progress and the quality achieved clearly do not substantiate the widely publicized claims made for the accelerated rate of translation that can be achieved through the MAST methodology."[iv] This is a direct quote from a peer-reviewed assessment team from the Maclella Foundation of the MAST process.

Another important point is this: The MAST process can be highly subjective, has little or no cross-checking for accuracy, and is produced at breakneck speeds. If a translation produces errors, WA can claim it was the fault of the local churches who were doing the actual work, avoiding any culpability. If the translation goes well, however, Wycliffe Associates can – and does – take credit for the completed translation, as if they were responsible for doing all the work.

Abandoning Accurate Scriptures

What happens to the Bible ‘Translations’ after 2025 when the WA goal of starting a translation in every language is presumably met? Who gets held accountable when the poor-quality, error-ridden translations produced between now and, say, 2030, start producing heresies and cults?

What if after the two week training, they are left alone to complete the work? A Bible Translator friend wrote and said, “I just wanted to thank you for writing about WA. We are not allowed to say these things publicly and your blogs have given us a way to share what is so harmfully affecting our work.  A national church has bought into their ‘line’ and sent 6 language groups to the MAST workshops.  Now after the 2-week workshop, WA left and these language groups have been hung out to dry and they are longing for God's word in their languages and, because of the agreements they made, are unable to get the help they want right now.”

This is hypocritical. Wycliffe Bible Translators is condemned and called blasphemous for struggling over translating tricky verses for the Muslim context. Wycliffe Associates says, "literal translation of Father and Son of God is not negotiable” but they don’t protect the other 7,950 verses in the same manner.

By contrast, Wycliffe Bible Translators and, in a larger sense, Wycliffe Global Alliance, have decided to handle the issue in a very quiet way, choosing to continue the work they have been doing for decades. If they speak up to defend themselves, it is possible they could be seen in a bad light. Better, then, to simply continue God's work, no matter how WA acts.

The Wycliffe Global Alliance states: "Translation that faithfully communicates the meaning of Scripture has always been and continues to be a foundational principle for all of the more than 100 organizations that are part of the Wycliffe Global Alliance."[v]

I can understand that choice, but I can't remain silent myself. I want to speak up for Wycliffe Bible Translators.  I do this not because I have an agenda - I have no axe to grind, as some have suggested - but because Wycliffe Bible Translators have been wronged, and the integrity of Bible translation is threatened.

---

[i] https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/march/wycliffe-associates-leaves-wga-bible-translation-son-of-god.html

[ii] https://www.christiantoday.com/article/how-the-meaning-of-father-and-son-has-led-to-a-split-among-bible-translators-in-america/81049.htm

[iii] https://www.christiantoday.com/article/how-the-meaning-of-father-and-son-has-led-to-a-split-among-bible-translators-in-america/81049.htm

[iv] https://map.bloomfire.com/posts/2461095-a-peer-reviewed-assessment-of-the-mast-methodology

[v] https://www.christiantoday.com/article/how-the-meaning-of-father-and-son-has-led-to-a-split-among-bible-translators-in-america/81049.htm