Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Gospel “for Islamic use” sparks controversy

A new Turkish translation of the Bible that replaces all references to God as the “Father,” and to Jesus Christ as the “Son of God,” is “unacceptable and useless,” say the representatives of the Alliance of Protestant Churches in Turkey. 

“As leaders of local Protestant churches,” write the evangelical leaders in a note, “we find the misleading translations of these extremely important and foundational New Testament terms to be wrong and extremely negative. We certainly cannot approve of them.”
 
Much harsh criticism has also come from Biblical Missiology, one of the groups whose representatives in Turkey posted their indignation on its website. “How does ‘the West’ know what is best for national churches along the border, which are under every kind of pressure, who have sacrificed their lives for the Gospel, and who must live with the consequences of these translations and methodologies?” they ask in the letter.
 
The controversy involves Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), and Frontiers, three Protestant organizations that have produced translations of the Bible that remove or change terms that may be offensive to the Islamic mindset. 

As previously mentioned, the translations change references to “God the Father” and “the Son of God.” 

One example of this is in the Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew, published by Frontiers and SIL: in Matthew 28:19, “baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is changed to “purify then with water in the name of Allah, of His Messiah, and His Holy Spirit.”
 
At first, Wycliffe Bible Translators defended their actions, saying that “the titles [Father and Son, - Ed.] were not deleted, but actually have been maintained such that their correct meaning is properly communicated. The problem is not that the Greek terms are offensive to Muslims, but that unfortunately, for some readers, the traditional translation may imply that God has sex with women, and thus would give readers the impression that the translation is corrupt.” 

Later, however, Wycliffe agreed to review its policy in cooperation with the World Evangelical Alliance, a network of evangelical churches, which has entrusted the issue to a committee of experts.
 
This problem is not limited to Turkey. Around the world, many formerly Muslim evangelical HOMs, as well as local Christians in the countries where these translations are in use, have raised protests, culminating in a petition to put an end to them. 

Even so, at least according to Turkish evangelicals, the time has come to sound the alarm. 

“To prevent Turkish citizens, Christian or not, from being exposed to incorrect doctrine and misunderstandings, the translation committee has received a request to change the problem terms believed to weaken the underlying Christian theology.” 

But the translators continue to use “Representative of God” instead of “Son of God,” “Mevla (protector, auxiliary)” for “Father” and “ablution of repentance” for “baptism.”
 
The Turkish Protestants are not the first to take a very firm stance against “Islamized” translations. 

The Church of Bengal has spoken with great severity on the subject, and a similar controversy occurred in Malaysia, where controversy over the use of the term “Allah” by Christians to mean “God” has dragged on for years, in spite of a Constitutional Court order. 

“As the Church in a predominantly Muslim country, we are concerned that there are currently moves to suppress any reference to God as ‘Father’ and Jesus Christ as ‘the Son of God’ in Holy Scripture in the local language,” wrote Moko Chen Liang, secretary general of Gereja Presbyterian Malaysia in a communique to U.S. colleagues. 

The Turkish Alliance of Protestant Churches represents the majority of the evangelical denominations in the country. In 2011 it published a “Report on the Violations of the Rights of Christians in Turkey.” 

Christians are a tiny minority of 72 million in the country. 

 The fear is that by fuelling misunderstandings and false interpretations, such translations could feed Christianophobia in the Islamic world.