Potomac Presbytery Proposes Public Stance on Bible Translations

Potomac Presbytery has overtured the 39th General Assembly to declare translations of the Bible that remove references to God as “Father” or Jesus as “Son” to be unfaithful renderings of God’s Word that alter the doctrines of the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus Christ, and Scripture.

Rev. Scott Seaton of Emmanuel Presbyterian Church in Arlington, Va., introduced the overture, which passed by a margin sufficient enough that votes were not counted. He said an increasing number of missionaries in Muslim contexts—with MTW being a notable exception—experiment with or adopt these practices, and the church has not voiced its opinion on the matter.

“There are plenty of conferences and papers about these translations, but the church itself has been silent,” Seaton said. “Not just the PCA, but the church as a whole. This is properly an issue of the church, and it is important the church speak into this.”

These new translations stem from a trend in missions called “Insider Movements,” an initiative that was introduced in Muslim contexts. According to the overture’s endnotes, in Insider Movements, “Muslims who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah are encouraged to continue to identify themselves as Muslims, consider the Qur’an as authoritative, and practice the Five Pillars of Islam, including affirming the confession that ‘There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet’.”

According to proponents of Insider Movements, Muslims are turned off from Christianity because of the claim that Jesus is God’s Son, a concept they find offensive. In a 2005 essay in the International Journal of Frontier Missions, Rick Brown, an advocate of Insider Movements, said, “For most Muslims … this term has one meaning only, and that is God’s offspring by a sexual union ….There is a dire need to correct these misunderstandings and to invalidate the accusation in a timely manner,” Brown said. “This can be done in communications of every sort, but by all means it should be done in the Scriptures.”

Consequently, these translations have appeared in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. According to the overture, these translations replace the term “Son” with terms such as “Messiah” and “Father” with “Lord” or “Guardian.”

Seaton agrees Muslims are offended by references to Jesus as the Son of God and that misunderstandings must be corrected—but not by changing the Scriptures. He believes there are idioms in Muslim cultures that can help Muslims understand the concept; more importantly, this is a hermeneutical issue regarding how Christians and missionaries ought to approach God’s Word.

“The Scriptures clearly reveal Jesus as God’s Son, and someone’s offense does not give us the prerogative to remove the term, only to explain it,” Seaton said.

With this overture, Seaton hopes the Church can offer guidance to missionaries on the doctrinal ramifications of removing references to God as “Father” and Jesus as “Son,” while affirming the importance of contextualizing the Gospel for different cultures.

Though Insider Movements have been around since the 1980’s, Seaton first heard of Insider Movements in 1998 while serving as a pastor in Atlanta. Later, when he came on board with Mission to the World to oversee its ministry in the Muslim world, Seaton and others in the agency continued to encounter this issue. Even after moving to Arlington four years ago to plant Emmanuel, Seaton saw that the issue seemed to follow him. 

“It seemed like my conscience was being pricked by this issue,” he said.

Seaton is also concerned that many PCA churches might unknowingly be supporting missionaries and mission organizations that use Insider Movement translations. Thus, in addition to declaring translations of the Bible that remove familial language as unfaithful, the overture encourages PCA churches to assess whether their missionaries and agencies use translations of the Bible that “remove familial language in reference to persons of the Trinity” and withdraw support if they do.

Overall, the Potomac overture asks the General Assembly to engage the issue in a largely positive way by recommending that the General Assembly affirm biblical motivations for sharing the gospel with those who have never heard it and calling the General Assembly to repent of the complacency that keeps churches from a “faithful witness.”

And instead of backing away from resistant peoples, the overture further encourages PCA congregations to “to support biblically sound and appropriately contextualized efforts.” “Given that agencies like MTW are remaining faithful on this issue, why not direct your missions dollars to efforts you can be excited about?” Seaton said.

Seaton believes the PCA, with its simultaneous commitment to theology and missions, has an opportunity to lead a biblical response to this issue; thus, the overture also calls the PCA to collaborate with other churches in the denomination and the broader Church to “discern and implement biblical authority in gospel contextualization.”

While the overture specifically addresses the translations, it also asks the General Assembly to authorize the GA moderator to create a study committee to investigate Insider Movements and recommend policy guidelines for MTW and local congregations as a way for congregations to learn more about this issue.

Seaton acknowledges the broader issues surrounding Insider Movements are complex, but he argues the translation issue is so straightforward that church members quickly grasp the implications of removing the familial language. Seaton invites church leaders to answer a simple question: “If someone started giving your members English Bibles that removed references to Jesus as the Son of God, what would you do?”

The overture extensively cites articles on both sides of the Insider Movement debate. For more information on the Insider Movement and critiques of it, see the following:
Explaining the Biblical Term 'Son(s) of God' in Muslim Contexts
Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa 
Promoting Movements to Christ within Natual Communities
Jay Smith's Assessment of Insider Movements, C5 Mission Strategies
Insider Movements: An Evangelical Assessment
Followers of Jesus (Isa) in Islamic Mosques

To read Overture 9 in its entirety, and with extensive footnotes, please click here.

Comments

All Fields Are Required:


John


Musgrave


Raleigh, NC


I'm almost always against the "we don't like this" overtures, but this seems to be an overture that we should affirm as a denomination. The overture isn't a political statement, as some of the "we don't like this" overtures often are; this issue is one that regards Scripture directly, and is a matter of being faithful to the Scriptures themselves. Mess with the Trinity throughout Church History and you're rightly declared a heretic. Thus, any translation that messes with the Trinity is heretical. We should vote this overture up.

2011-04-08 08:48 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Harvey


Watson, Jr.


Birmingham, AL 35216


I am happy that we aree dealing with this issue. This isn't a cold theological debate. This is att the heaaart of the Gosspel. We are called to minister to a dying world. Islam is the major religion we are going to have to deal with. Its people are caught in this false religin. I cry whenever people compromise the gospel. Anything less than the gospel will not save.

2011-04-09 12:40 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Robert


Murphy


Puyallup, WA


I was surprised as I read that this wasn't a protest of "gender inclusive" language, i.e. God as Mother/Parent and Jesus as Daughter/Child. Pleasantly surprised, that is. As has been said, this isn't merely a "don't like" button but a statement *for* something, albeit strangely worded.

2011-04-09 23:16 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


David


Harriman


Mesa, AZ


So glad this issue is being addressed in the PCA. As a former Frontiers member (Director of Advancement, U.S. Sending Base), I can confirm that the issue of Muslim-compliant translations is directly related to the broader issue of insider-movement advocacy within the mission community.

2011-04-11 13:32 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Leonard


Layne


Cambridge, MA


I was alarmed when I read "Bible Versions" ..... again.

Historically, Bible version issues have been a matter of debate "within" the churches, whether about ancient textual sources (Byzantine, Coptic, Alexandrian, Western) or relatively modern amalgamations (TR verses Westcott and Hort/Nestle or the Majority text). Again, there was the theological boondoggle over the Arian New World translation which was thoroughly askew of Trinitarian doctrine). In recent times we were rescued by the NIV and later the brilliant ESV, majestic, accurate and yet readable.

This new Bible Version issue appears to be an assault from "without", an assault at the very vitals of "the faith" once handed down to the saints.

The great creeds and confessions have been an important safeguard to those guided alike by the Spirit.

I rejoice to see that there are those who aim to be valiant for Truth.

2011-04-13 14:53 Permalink Reply

All Fields Are Required:


Allan


Schwarb


Chesterfield MO


With invalid "Insider Movement" translations in circulation isn't the very Word of God compromised?

As with our English translations, how will the PCA ensue only error- and omission-free translations are used by MTW leaders and congregations in Arabic-speaking countries?

Every jot and tittle matter.

2011-04-14 00:13 Permalink Reply

Leave a Comment

All Fields Are Required: