In Pursuit of a Faithful Witness

Because advocates of these translations can describe their work in ways
that appear acceptable on the surface, the overture was intentionally specific
and objective. Using terms other than “Father” or “Son” in the text was expressly
deemed unfaithful. In other words, relegating those terms to the footnotes, or
using “non-familial alternatives” would be compromising the very essence of the
Christian faith.

In order to focus on the issue itself, the overture intentionally did not
reference any missions organization. Prior to the Assembly, however, the
leadership of Wycliffe/SIL asked SIL translator Larry Chico to prepare a
response, called “Considering Overture 9,” 
to be sent to the PCA. Though not formally received by the Assembly, the
document was distributed to pastors and elders in attendance. The Wycliffe
document “extracted
the key claims and statements” from the overture and provided a “response based
on comments and feedback from translators and consultants directly involved in
translation projects done for Muslim language communities.” Thus, “Concerning
Overture 9” offers an important insight into the thinking of certain Wycliffe/SIL translators.

Subsequent to the Assembly, critics of these “Muslim-Idiom Translations”
asked me as lead author of the overture to prepare a response to “Considering
Overture 9,” given its public nature. That response, which includes all seven
pages of Wycliffe/SIL’s paper and the final version of the overture, is
entitled “Towards A Faithful Witness” can be found here: Towards A Faithful Witness.pdf

Those who are concerned about the direction of world missions (which
should include all Christians!) are encouraged to read the article in full, to
come to their own conclusions. But given its length, a representative sampling
of the exchange may whet one’s appetite. I have sincerely tried to represent
Wycliffe’s position fairly, even while offering a direct critique. Thus,
Chico’s comments in each section are included in full, both here and in the
longer article. To make it clear who wrote each section, I put the excerpts
that Chico cited in bold and italicized my comments, which follow Chico’s
response.

The first excerpt Chico cites is the overture’s claim that “some groups have produced Bible
translations that have replaced references to Jesus as ‘Son’ (huios)
with terms such as ‘Messiah’ . . .”

[Chico:] The
scholars who are most aware of Bible translations that have been done for
Muslim audiences are not aware of any approved Bible translations that
systematically use the term “Messiah” for the term huios tou theou in
Greek, nor are they aware of any that do not present and explain the Father-Son
terminology of the original-language text. Consultants always insist that where
a functional or non-familial alternative to the traditional translation for
“Son” or “Father” is used, that the paratext (introductions, glossaries,
articles and footnotes accompanying the Scripture text) explain this and
provide the traditional rendering.

[Seaton:] The central premise of the
overture is this: there simply is no”functional alternative” for God’s identity
as Father, Son and Spirit. He exists eternally and ontologically as God the
Father, Son and Spirit, and thus he reveals himself in those familial terms–not
as metaphor, but as who he is in his person. To replace “Father” and “Son” with
a “non-familial alternative” is to portray God as exactly that: non-familial.
But 1 John 4:14 says, “We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the
Son to be the Savior of the world.” Thus, it is God as Father who sent God the
Son. The Sonship of Jesus cannot be obscured; it is at the very heart of the
gospel: Without the Son, there is no cross. Without the cross, there is no
gospel. 

The overture never claims a “systematic,”
one-for-one replacement of “Son of God” with “Messiah,” and its claims cannot
be dismissed simply by saying “scholars” are unaware of translations that “systematically
use the term ‘Messiah’ for the term ‘huios
tou theou.'” What the overture asserts is true. Translations indeed
exist that replace references to Jesus as “Son” with terms such as “Messiah.”
For example, the 2005 Bangla translation of the “Injil Sharif” that was
financed by Global Partners For Development explicitly replaced “Son” with
“Messiah.” . . . “The Lives of the Prophets” (“Stories of the Prophets”)
produced by SIL, and “The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ,” produced in conjunction with an SIL advisor,
similarly replace “Son” with other terms. . . .

Larry
Chico confirms SIL’s approved practice of removing familial language in the
statement, “where functional or non-familial alternative to the traditional
translation for ‘Son’ or ‘Father’ is used.” This is deeply disturbing and would
alarm most supporters. Moreover, this practice is not mitigated by saying that
consultants “always insist” that explanations are given in the paratext when
alternatives are used. This may be SIL’s official position; however, the
overture does not refer to the “insistence” of any particular Bible translation
agency, but only to actual translation practices. But more importantly, the
overture expressly rejects removal of familial language from the text itself.
In other words, relegating familial language only to the paratext is not
adequate for God’s purposes of revelation. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture
is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness.” While paratext is helpful, as a pastor, I teach,
reprove, correct and train from the text, not the footnotes. The text–not the
paratext–should be considered authoritative, as God’s words “breathed-out.” .
. .

Chico
then cites the overture’s claim that “some groups . . . have replaced references . . . in order to be more
acceptable to Muslims,”

[Chico:] What
Muslims find unacceptable about kinship terminology is not the theological
meaning associated with it, but the sexual implications that they perceive in
the phrases themselves. Professional Bible translation specialists and the
local translators they work with are strongly committed to faithfully
communicating the original meaning of the inspired Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic
sources, making them clear, natural and accurate. They work to communicate this
meaning as fully and accurately as possible, using expressions native to the
language rather than imports from other dialects and communities. They test
draft translation passages with members of the target audience, using
alternative wordings, to find out how each wording is understood by them. The
local translators and leading believers then decide which terms and wordings
should be used, based on the testing.

 [Seaton:] Every generation of the Church is given a
sacred trust. As Paul says to the church in Thessalonica, “We have been approved by God to be entrusted
with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests
our hearts.” (1 Thess 2:4).

We also have been
given a stewardship, to faithfully guard and proclaim the gospel. What we say
cannot be determined by whether the audience is pleased by the message.

Thus, the overture intentionally does not specify
the reasons why Muslims find “Son” objectionable, because their reaction has no
bearing on what God actually said. Determining whether the offense to Muslims
is the sexual implication or the divine implication–or something else
entirely–is not the focus of the overture and should not be the focus of a
translation. Again, audience understanding is important in the challenging work
of translation, but it cannot alter what God has revealed. . . .

While objections of any sort cannot change
God’s revelation of himself as Father and Son, many missionaries and believers
from Muslim backgrounds disagree with the premise that, “What Muslims find
unacceptable about kinship terminology is not the theological meaning
associated with it, but the sexual implications . . .” The experience of many
serving in the Muslim world is that Muslims’ primary objection to the term is not sexual but
theological. “Son of God” indicates that God’s nature exists in more than one
person, and that he is immanent. This Scriptural teaching, affirmed by the
historic and global Church, is offensive to the Islamic understanding of
absolute monotheism and transcendence. The solution is not to remove God’s own
term for himself from the text, but to explain it in the paratext. Certainly,
this explanation will take time. But the witness of tens of thousands of
Muslims around the world who have come to faith in Jesus as the Son of God, is
that the Holy Spirit indeed is able to speak to their hearts, too.

[Chico cites footnote iii of the overture:] It is implied that
translations for Muslim audiences “alter primary doctrines such as the
authority of Scripture, the Trinity, and the necessity of Christ’s atonement.”

[Chico:] We
have not seen that the translations in question provide any less evidence for
the doctrine of the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and the necessity of
Christ’s atonement.

Translators
would be very concerned if this were the case, and would want to revise them,
because they are concerned to accurately communicate Biblical truth. It is for
this reason they choose to use language and explanations that accurately
communicate what the Bible in its original languages teaches. Translators
repeatedly test the translations with members of the audience to find out how
they understand them, so they would know if the translation was not conveying
biblical doctrine correctly.

[Seaton:] When God says in Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add
to the word that I command you, nor take from it,” it is because our
doing so changes our understanding of God and his ways. Thus, on
June 10, 2011, the Presbyterian
Church in America overwhelmingly approved the overture, including its language
that “such removals compromise doctrines of the Trinity, the person and work
of Jesus Christ, and Scripture.”

Consider the doctrine
of the Trinity, to see the impact of removing “Father” and “Son.” “Trinity” is
a word we use to affirm the biblical witness that God exists eternally as one
God in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. These terms are not mere
metaphors. Instead, they refer to God’s eternal person. As theologian John
Murray said in “Jesus, the Son of God,” 

The
argument for the eternal Fatherhood and for its correlate the eternal Sonship
must be extended one further step. There is what may be called the theological
consideration. The doctrine of the Trinity is concerned with the
differentiation within the Godhead that is necessary, intrinsic, and eternal.
If there is Trinity there must be the distinction of persons and therefore the
distinguishing property of each person, a property that is incommunicable.[2]

Thus, there is the
property of God as Father that makes him distinct from God the Son or God the
Spirit. This distinction is not simply for our comprehension of God, but is
“necessary, intrinsic and eternal.” In other words, these eternal distinctions
of God as Father, Son and Spirit are what “makes,” so to speak, the Trinity.
According to Scripture, God does not become Trinitarian by his works of
Creation or Redemption. He is eternally one God in three persons, and
therefore, “Father” and “Son” are not mere titles or analogies. They are terms
that God uses for himself, eternally. Take away God as Father or Son, and you have
no Trinity.

The overture also asserts that removing
familial language compromises doctrines of “the person and work of Jesus
Christ, and Scripture.” . . .

[Chico cites
the overture again:] “These same Bible translations of Insider Movements
have replaced references to God as ‘Father’ (pater) with terms such as
‘Guardian’ and ‘Lord.'”

[Chico:] Many
languages have different expressions for a biological father and a nurturing
father. God is our nurturing father rather than our biological begetter. For
that reason some translations use the Arabic word rabb. This word comes
from the verb for parenting children, and the noun is used for the head of a
household. It is used of God to describe him as the one who nurtures and
sustains his people. It describes the care and authority of a father without
implying sexual procreation. Another Arabic term, waliyy, is also used
for a nurturing parent but without necessarily implying sexual
procreation. 

[Seaton:] “Waliyy” is Arabic for “guardian.” To suggest
that this is an acceptable alternative is to deny Muslims the biblical
privilege of knowing God as “Father.” That depth of intimacy is at the heart of
the gospel, that God sends his Son to adopt us into his family–not simply to
rule or guard over us. No human father would discourage his children from
calling him “father” and instead direct them to call him “guardian.” 

Several times I have heard the following defense
for alternatives to familial language: “We must use alternatives to ‘Father’ or
‘Son’ because Muslims have implications for those words that are abhorent and
unbiblical when associated with God. Those misunderstandings thus misrepresent
the true character of God–and so we must use non-familial terms.”

I completely disagree. If a woman has been abused
by her biological father and finds it difficult to think of God as a good and
loving heavenly Father, do we prepare a Bible for her that removes “Father”? Of
course not! Instead, we show her how God is the true and perfect Father she
never had, and her deep longing for a loving father can only be met with a
right understanding of God the Father’s perfect love and care for her.

If parents have a son who has publicly shamed and
abandoned them, such that it is difficult for them to think of Jesus as the good
and noble Son sent from heaven, do we prepare a Bible for them that removes
“Son”? Of course not! Instead, we show them how Jesus is the true and perfect
Son they never had, and their deep longing for a faithful son can only be met
with a right understanding of God the Son’s perfect honor and faithfulness.

In the same way, a Muslim’s sub-biblical
understanding of God the Father and God the Son can only be answered with who
God really is–God the perfect, eternal, good, loving Father, Son and Spirit. Words are important. If a Bible translation fails
to include references to Jesus as “Son” or “Son of God,” Muslims will fail to
think of him as such.

That last
comment is perhaps a fitting summary of the concern over Muslim-Idiom
Translations. The gospel is the astounding news that God the Father sent his
Son to redeem the world. It is the self-sacrifice of God on our behalf and for
his glory. Any other message is preaching another gospel. We are all equally in
need of the gospel, and in the words of the overture, “Muslims should not be
denied a full and faithful witness.” Muslim-Idiom Translations are neither full
nor faithful.