By the time I was in seminary in the late 90’s, there were what I considered to be three real options: the Revised Standard Version (1952), the New American Standard Version (1971) and the New International Version (1978).  I had grown up with the RSV but in Evangelical circles this version was suspect because it sought to incorporate liberal critical theory into the translation process (although many of my most conservative professors preferred the RSV and I continued to use it during seminary and for a time afterwards).  As I began to preach regularly, I realized the RSV was not going to catch on in my particular church environment and figured it was not wise or helpful to continue to be out of step with the congregation.  The NIV and the NASB provided two fairly different but widely accepted options.  The NIV was created by translators leaning more to towards the “dynamic equivalence” translation philosophy, which seeks to re-say what the original text says in words and phrases that are natural to the host language.  Dynamic equivalence translations are also more likely to make interpretive decisions in texts where the original language might be ambiguous (although most translations end up doing this because the host language sometimes has no easy way of maintaining the ambiguity).  Such interpretive decision-making is why it matters on some level what the beliefs of the translators are.  At any rate, this philosophy of translation resulted in a punchy, readable rendering of the original languages and I chose to use it because of its natural English feel and accessibility.  Besides, I’d be studying with the original languages on hand and so would be getting the full breadth of translation possibilities.  The NASB, on the other hand, was written with a bias for “formal equivalence” (sometimes inaccurately referred to as “word for word”).  Formally equivalent translations can sound very wooden in English or even unintelligible as they seek to carry over the lexical and grammatical forms of the original language into the host language.  But if translation is about making something intelligible, there is no guarantee that simply reproducing these forms makes it more intelligible; sometimes it has the opposite effect.  So, in my mind, advantage NIV.

In the last decade, the translation options have further multiplied.  The RSV was revised to become both the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989) and the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001).  Then came the New Living Translation (NLT, 2004), Today’s New International Version (TNIV, 2005), the New English Version (NET, 2005) and soon a revision of the NIV (2011, available online now).  All these versions attempt to solve two primary translation problems: 1) how best to balance formal/dynamic equivalence translation philosophies and 2) how best to incorporate cultural changes in gender related language use.  The NRSV is an update of the RSV emphasizing the use of gender inclusive language.  Many have documented how some NRSV gender inclusive language decisions create theological confusion in places and so the NRSV has not been generally considered in Evangelical contexts.  The ESV is also a revision of the RSV, striving to maintain a balance between dynamic and formal equivalence, but with a more conservative approach to usage of gender inclusive language (it does use gender inclusive language).  The NLT is perhaps furthest on the dynamic equivalence side and, while certainly worth consulting, is not generally considered for corporate congregational use.  The TNIV was a revision of the NIV that has already gone out of print due to controversy regarding its gender inclusive language choices.  While this text was heavily criticized by the broad evangelical world, many conservative Biblical scholars who are highly trained in translation theory continue to hold the TNIV in high regard.  In surveying the debate about the TNIV it seems that while it started as a discussion among the faithful about the technicalities of gender inclusive translation theory, it ended as a somewhat politicized dispute with the majority of evangelical leaders (whether or not they were schooled in science of translation) siding against the TNIV.  While I’m not in a position to give a final ruling on that debate, it is now a mute point because the TNIV is out of print.  A new revision of the NIV is due out in 2011 and will include a reassessment of all the passages that lead to the controversy.  In the meantime, however, huge numbers of Bible readers have switched to the ESV which intends to be both faithful and readable and, as mentioned, has dealt more conservatively with the gender inclusive language question.  In addition, the publishing of the ESV Study Bible in 2008, complete with comprehensive exegetical and theological notes, has further boosted the ESV’s appeal.

Sorting it all out, it would seem that, going forward, the 2011 NIV and the ESV remain the most generally accepted options.  The question for a pastor in the daily grind of preaching and shepherding is two-fold. 1) Will the 2011 NIV be “better” than the ESV and 2) will it catch hold enough?  The second question is hard to predict given the response to the TNIV and the move of many to the ESV.  We won’t know for some years now.  With respect to the first question, however, the 2011 NIV is available online now and can be compared to the ESV.  So far, the conclusion is the same one that we get so often in biblical translation: each translation is better than the others in some ways and not in others.  I don’t particularly like, for example, that the NIV has stayed with translating “flesh” as “sinful nature” (although, after an in-depth reading of the rationale behind it, I have a much greater respect for this decision).  In other cases, it seems the 2011 NIV takes a more consistent approach to the inclusive language problem (cf. Hebrews 2:11 and 3:1 in ESV and 2011 NIV, for example).  On balance, however, I moderately prefer the overall philosophy of the ESV (generally seeking to “interpret” less, maintain ambiguities and leave more for the reader to figure out).  I can live with its imperfection (but I could live with the imperfections of the 2011 NIV and many of the other translations as well).

In all this, it is crucial to keep several points in mind. For the past months, I’ve been doing devotions and studying with four or five versions in parallel plus the original language text and have come to this conclusion: no translation is perfect.  But, since I can’t mix and match my Bibles on the fly, I have to choose one.  On balance, I choose the ESV.  At the same time, I/we must remember what a luxury it is to choose!  Instead of 16 lower quality manuscripts as was the case with the KJV, the Bible I read is based on 1000‘s of manuscripts, many of them of extremely high quality.  Not only that, generations of scholars have combed through these manuscripts and wrestled deeply to determine the best way to express in English the words of the original language.  This is a luxury very few Christians in history have had.  Lastly, we shouldn’t be put off by all the different versions and their accompanying philosophical differences.  What this says is that we are a people who take the word of God very seriously.  We want to know it faithfully.  We want to read it in the best possible way.  As long as that remains true, we can only be hopeful.   

There are basically four postures towards culture, according to Crouch.  We can ‘critique’ it, ‘condemn’ it, ‘consume’ it or ‘create’ it (he’s a man of ‘c’s).  Throughout history, the church has fallen into the trap of advocating one posture to the exclusion of the others.  Crouch argues that different circumstances call for different postures.  Then he helps us discern which postures we should assume and when.  All throughout there is an emphasis on embracing our God given calling to “create culture” with and through the gospel.

“Creating culture” is best done in community, argues Crouch.  Jesus modeled this and nearly every successful cultural good ever produced was incubated in community.  Crouch helpfully describes the various layers of community that commonly result in birthing of new and redemptive cultural goods, movements, trends, etc.

The last section of the book explores the limits of what we as humans can do through our (sometimes grandiose) dreams.   I found it to be almost devotional in tone and was deeply encouraged.  The section on “grace babies” was, by itself, worth the price of admission.

The energy in our community around becoming agents of grace is a beautiful thing.  Unharnessed, it will dissipate.   My hope is that Culture-Makers might help provide a framework for moving forward.

(There’s a free study guide to go along with the book here: Free study guide here.)

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.  Mere Christianity is the grand-daddy of the modern introductions to Christianity and still ranks highest on Amazon sales.  Lewis provides both a comprehensive outline of the core of Christianity (part 2) and interacts with the contemporary issues of the day (part 1).  Throughout, he addresses issue of the head and the heart, bringing the faith to bear on all aspects of what it means to be human.  His penetration into the contemporary issues of his day was so deep and far-sighted that his philosophical insights still apply (note that some find this depth of penetration overly strenuous and are bogged down by it).  Of course, many modern thinkers and writers with whom Lewis would relish interacting weren’t around in his day and so he is unable to make his defense to their criticisms.  But this shouldn’t keep anyone from enjoying the most read, most comprehensive introduction to Christianity.  The book is great for anyone interested in grappling with deep things. 1952

Basic Christianity, by John R.W. Stott.  Stott is one of the clearest writers I have encountered.  In this work, he has packed all the essentials into an unbelievably short volume.  It is comprehensive and concise. First written in 1958 and then revised in 1971, this is an ageless presentation of the Christian faith.  The drawback to this approach, however, is that Stott does not find scope here to interact with the contemporary trends of his day (nor ours).  Still, at some point early in your walk with Jesus, you should read this book. 1958, 1971

More than a Carpenter, by Josh McDowell.  McDowell’s book is also focused on the person of Jesus Christ but brings in a broader range of topics than Green’s.  Some of the most famous passages in this book are on the origins and truth of scripture.  It is a simply written book, which is both good and bad.  Millions have found it helpful (10 million in print, they say) but at least some of those have found the arguments to be too simplistic.  It is, after all, only 128 pages long. 1987

Who is this Jesus? by Michael Green.  Green’s scope is more narrow than the others on this list as he focuses  entirely on the person of Jesus Christ.  It is a beautifully argued piece that builds to a crescendo as the various details of the portrait of Jesus come together.  I have often recommended this book to those coming from a Jewish background.  If there is any drawback, it is that it is not as comprehensive as the other works (it is the shortest at 107 pages). 1990

What’s So Great About Christianity, by Dinesh D’Souza.  I almost didn’t include this book as it is more about defending Christianity than introducing it.  Nevertheless, woven throughout the argument is a comprehensive picture of the Christian faith.  For those who like to roll up their sleeves and tussle over the hot-button issues that arise where faith and culture intersect, this is the book.  D’Souza is so refreshingly forthright that it is disarming.  Not all Christians will agree with his conclusions (for example, his perspective on evolution), but the book is certainly worth the read and, very fortifying.   2007

The Reason for God, by Tim Keller.  Of all the books on the list, this one comes closest to being an updated version of C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and I have a feeling I’ll be recommending to people I’d otherwise be sending to Lewis.  Keller addresses current thought trends in a masterful first part and then presents a comprehensive vision of the faith in the second.  Like Lewis, and absolutely essential to our contemporary context, he considers the rational, emotional and relational implications of both doubt and belief.  In several places, I found it to be truly soul-nourishing, even for someone who already spends a lot of time thinking about these kinds of things.  I recently recommended this book to a friend.  He is a fairly committed atheist, has a PhD in literature and is one of the more skeptical people I know.  He loves it.    2008

But Carson does not begin with this. Instead, he scrutinizes many activities and fundamental perspectives offered up as being the most urgent need in the church of the Western world— things such as personal holiness and purity, sound thinking on human dignity, encroaching materialism, or more intentional evangelism— and finds them each a very good thing, and yet not at the core. At the core, he says, at the root, “The one thing we most urgently need in Western Christendom is a deeper knowledge of God. We need to know God better.” (This is indeed the same point made in J.I. Packer’s Knowing God, another recommended book.)

The thrust of Carson’s book is to address “one small but vital part of that challenge. One of the foundational steps in knowing God, and one of the basic demonstrations that we do know God, is prayer— spiritual, persistent, biblically minded prayer. Writing a century and a half ago, Robert Murray M’Cheyne declared, ‘What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is, and no more.’ We have learned to organize, build institutions, publish books, insert ourselves into the media, develop evangelistic strategies, and administer discipleship programs, but we have forgotten how to pray.”

He goes on, “Shall we not agree with J.I. Packer when he writes, ‘I believe that prayer is the measure of the man, spiritually, in a way that nothing else is, so that how we pray is as important a question as we can ever face’? Can we profitably meet the other challenges that confront the Western church if prayer is ignored as much as it has been?”

Well, then! His purpose is to help us think through Paul’s prayers, to evaluate them, and thus to bring our own intercessory prayers in line with the emphases displayed in Scripture, but not just as a means to be praying ‘more biblically’; instead, the purpose is to show us the Lord’s heart and ambitions for His people, and to show us how our own prayers can help bring that about— to get us to pray.

He then devotes a chapter each to eight prayers of Paul for those in his care, such as 2 Thess. 1:3-12, Col. 1:9-14, Eph. 3:14-21 (how magnificent!), and Eph. 1:15-23. The writing is in depth, but not so deep as to suffocate the reader, instead he is deepening our understanding of the Apostle’s heart and thus the Lord’s heart. If I may interject a personal note: many years ago I memorized a significant portion of the book of the Ephesians, and years later I was put in a position of pastoral care for an adult Sunday School group. Not knowing how to care well for them yet feeling a huge desire for their spiritual growth, I went back frequently to Eph. 1, drew upon Paul’s prayer in vv. 15-19, and made it my own, knowing that, even though it didn’t cover everything they needed, there was much in there that I wanted them to have in their spiritual lives.

I recommend this book by Carson quite highly. It is useful either to read alone or to use in a small study group, because Carson has provided questions at the end of each chapter for that purpose. I have bought several copies and given them to people that I think will be aided by the content and the encouragement to pray.

Intercessory prayer is not easy; on the contrary it is hard, sometimes lonely work. But if you wish to pray in such a way that Time and Eternity will be changed, if you wish to seek the Lord’s face and His heart and His will on matters of eternal significance, this book can be a useful tool to challenge and encourage you.