Pastor, what Bible is good to use? NOT the NIV 2011

Often pastors get a question around Confirmation time or just whenever a Bible begins to wear out about what version of the Bible is best.  The last generation of translations (NKJV, NIV, NASB, and even the later ESV) all seemed pretty decent, with each having their own shortcomings.  With the introduction of the “gender neutral” translations such options are not as easy.  Then there are the questions raised in the usage of paraphrases like “The Message”.  But then new beasts arrived, newer translations which incorporate “gender neutral” language making a mockery of the Word of God in order to appease the gods of this age.  These horrid abberations should be avoided.  As such, the CTCR has published a “staff opinion” on the new NIV, which from what I understand the WELS is still considering using the NIV 2011.  Let’s hope and pray they do not.  Here is the text of the CTCR staff opinion:


CTCR Staff Opinion on
Inclusive Language in the
New International Version (2011)
(endnote 1)

In 1998 the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod published a report entitled Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language. [endnote 2] The report notes changes in the English language regarding terms that were once considered to apply equally to men or women (e.g., man, mankind, chairman, and so forth), but have come to be associated only with males. “In much common parlance, therefore, language which is regarded as neutral and inclusive has been substituted.” [endnote 3] The report recognizes that “language evolves” and so takes no position with regard to the propriety of inclusive language in everyday life.

The concern that led to the report had to do with the removal of gender specific language from translations of the Holy Scriptures (for example, the New Revised Standard Version) and the substitution of gender inclusive language that is not present in the original languages and texts of Scripture. In this regard the report takes a clear position grounded in the understanding of revelation itself that is held by us as Lutheran Christians:

This raises a different set of difficulties, for the Scriptures are not merely the rendering of a culturally based understanding of God. They are to be regarded as revelation whose author is finally God himself. Moreover, not only the concepts of Scripture but the very words of Scripture have been given to the biblical authors to write (1 Cor. 2:9-13; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Jer. 30:2). While the church will certainly wish to accommodate modern sensibilities and translate anew where the language of the Scriptures allows, the church is not free to alter the language of revelation. [endnote 4]

It is in the Word made flesh (John 1:14) that God has fulfilled “his purpose for humankind’s eternal destiny.” [endnote 5] This purpose, in one particular Person born of Mary at a particular time and place, is revealed in the particularity of Holy Scripture and most specifically “in the written testimony of the evangelical and apostolic writings of the New Testament.” [endnote 6] The specificity and particularity of the Word made flesh and the sacred Scriptures compel the church to “resist demands to change the words of Scripture or to replace them with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers.” [endnote 7]

Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language considers two aspects of the debate about masculine language in the Scriptures: the language that is used to refer to God and the language that is used to refer to humanity (both Christians and humanity in general). With regard to biblical language about God, the CTCR concludes: “If one wishes to translate accurately the words of the Scriptures, the language of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is clear enough concerning the terminology about God. God and his Spirit are consistently referred to in masculine terminology.” [endnote 8] With regard to language about people, BRIL asserts that whenever the Scriptures speak about people, the texts should be translated in a way that is consistent with “the language which the biblical authors in fact use.” [endnote 9]

These conclusions are significant with regard to certain decisions of the translations committee for NIV 2011. The Committee on Bible Translation which is responsible for ongoing revision of the NIV states in the Preface to NIV 2011:

One of the main reasons the task of Bible translation is never finished is the change in our own language, English. Although a basic core of the language remains relatively stable, many diverse and complex linguistic factors continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases. One of the shifts that creates particular challenges to writers and translators alike is the manner in which gender is presented. The original NIV (1978) was published in a time when “a man” would naturally be understood, in many contexts, to be referring to a person, whether male of female. But most English speakers today tend to hear a distinctly male connotation in this word. In recognition of this change in English, this edition of the NIV, along with almost all other recent English translations, substitutes other expressions when the original text intends to refer generically to men and women equally. Thus, for instance, the NIV (1984) rendering of 1 Corinthians 8:3, “But the man who loves God is known by God” becomes in this edition “But whoever loves God is known by God.” On the other hand, “man” and “mankind,” as ways of denoting the human race, are still widely used. This edition of the NIV therefore continues to use these words, along with other expressions, in this way.

A related shift in English creates a greater challenge for modern translations: the move away from using the third-person masculine singular pronouns—”he/him/his”—to refer to men and women equally. This usage does persist at a low level in some forms of English, and this revision therefore occasionally uses these pronouns in a generic sense. But the tendency, recognized in day-to-day usage and confirmed by extensive research, is away from the generic use of “he,” “him,” and “his.” In recognition of this shift in language and in an effort to translate into the “common” English that people are actually using, this revision of the NIV generally uses other constructions when the biblical text is plainly addressed to men and women equally. The reader will frequently encounter a “they,” “their,” or “them” to express a generic singular idea. Thus, for instance, Mark 8:36 reads: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” This generic use of the “indefinite” or “singular” “they/them/their” has a venerable place in English idiom and has quickly become established as standard English, spoken and written, all over the world. Where an individual emphasis is deemed to be present, “anyone” or “everyone” or some other equivalent is generally used as the antecedent of such pronouns. [endnote 10]

The Committee on Bible Translations makes important, legitimate points as it explains its desire to communicate the meaning of the Bible’s texts in English as it is used today. Nevertheless, the particular decisions to substitute a “generic” “they/them/their” for masculine singular pronouns in the texts of Scripture is contrary to the perspective in BRIL as noted above (cf. footnote 9). Also contrary to BRIL’s perspective is the similar decision to substitute a collective noun for a masculine singular noun. While there may be many examples in which such substitution does not change the sense or inherent intent of the passage, BRIL’s judgment that this approach not be followed is in order because of its potential to alter significantly the meaning of passages. We cite only two—but two very significant— examples of how this decision affects meaning adversely:

  1. Genesis 1:26-27 in NIV 2011 reads: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind [collective noun substitution for “man”] in our image, in our likeness, so that they [the plural pronoun is in the original] may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind [collective noun substitution for “man”] in his own image, in the image of God he created them [plural pronoun substitution for “him”]; male and female he created them.”In the first substitution of “mankind” for “man,” the particularity of the first man is made unclear. The rationale for this would seem to be the desire to emphasize that all humanity is created in God’s image, but the original text itself had made that abundantly clear already by paralleling “man” in the first clause of verse 26 with “they” in the following clause. In verse 27, the second substitution of “mankind” for “man” again undermines the particularity of Adam’s creation. Moreover, when coupled with the substitution of “them” for “him” as the verse continues, the progression of the verse is obfuscated. The original verse itself progresses from the particular creation of Adam—the one man who is father of all creation, created in God’s image, and in whom all will die through his sin (Rom 5:12)—to the male and female, which is paralleled to him. The original text then preserves both the particularity and universality which NIV 2011 undermines.
  2. Psalm 8:4-5 in NIV 2011 reads: “What is mankind [collective noun substitution for “man”] that you are mindful of them [plural substitution for “him”], Human beings [plural noun substitution for “son of man”] that you care for them [plural substitution for “him”]? You have made them [plural substitution for “him”] a little lower than the angels and crowned them [plural substitution for “him”] with glory and honor.”Once again, the rationale for the translation changes seems to be the desire to emphasize a universal truth about all humanity—that humankind has received glory and honor as the crown of creation. The translation decisions, however, obfuscate other things. First, and most importantly, the decision to use plurals here vitiates the Messianic meaning of this psalm, its particular application to Christ. Hebrews 2:5-9 quotes Ps 8:4-5 and notes that these verses testify to our Lord Jesus. He is the Man to whom the Lord gives all glory and honor; the Son of Man to whom all creation is subject. He is the One who exceeds the angels in glory and honor, even though he was made to be lower than them for our salvation.Second, we should note that the substitution of a generic term like “human being” or “human beings” for “son of man” (a consistent pattern in NIV 2011), impoverishes the understanding of “Son of Man” as the self-designation our Lord uses throughout the Gospels. Jesus uses a term (a particular idiom, “son of man”) from the Old Testament that indicates full humanity and refers it to himself. This is of great importance, especially when it is seen in the light of Daniel 7:13-14. There that same term, “son of man,” is used in a prophecy of our Savior’s incarnation, where “one like a son of man” is “given dominion and glory and a kingdom” in which all nations are included under a rule that shall never be destroyed.

Given the significance of this issue and these examples, we find the NIV’s Committee on Bible Translation decision to substitute plural nouns and pronouns for masculine singular nouns and pronouns to be a serious theological weakness and a misguided attempt to make the truth of God’s Word more easily understood. The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church. This is not a judgment on the entirety of NIV 2011 as a translation—a task that would require a much more extensive study of NIV 2011—but an opinion as to a specific editorial decision which has serious theological implications.

Endnotes —

  1. This document is in response to a request from the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), who asked for an opinion on the appropriateness for use in the LCMS of the 2011 edition of the New International Version. The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011) is referred to herein as NIV 2011.
  2. Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (abbreviated as BRIL) is available online at
  3. BRIL, 5.
  4. BRIL, 6.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid.
  7. Ibid., 7.
  8. Ibid., 21.
  9. Ibid., 31. As an example of improper translation approaches, BRIL cites the substitution of a plural pronoun for a singular pronoun in the text (changing “he” to “they”). However, BRIL states that not all changes to more neutral language are improper, for example, translations of the Greek word anthropos as “person” or “someone” rather than “man” (cf. 32-33). Yet, regarding the same term, BRIL notes that one ought not translate anthropos generically if it refers to a specific man (e.g., di’ henos anthropou in Rom 5:12 refers to one man, Adam; cf. 34).
  10. Emphasis added. We should note that the Preface seems to indicate a subtle assumption which Lutherans do not share, namely, the common Evangelical view that the primary purpose of the Bible is for individual reading. Lutherans, while certainly encouraging individuals to read the Bible, have a more ecclesial understanding of the role of Scripture, something consistent with the Bible itself: “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (ESV). In the Lutheran understanding of the necessity of the Office of the Ministry there stands a curb against each individual making purely personal and idiosyncratic understandings. The pastor, “apt to teach” in part because of knowledge of the original languages of the Word, is able to illuminate the texts of Scripture in the context of the faithful. He has a sacred and sober responsibility for “properly dividing the Word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15)—both in its particularity and its inclusiveness of all humanity.

About Pastor Joshua Scheer

Pastor Joshua Scheer is the Senior Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He is also the Editor-in-chief of Brothers of John the Steadfast. He oversees all of the work done by Steadfast Lutherans. He is a regular host of Concord Matters on KFUO. Pastor Scheer and his lovely wife Holly (who writes and manages the Katie Luther Sisters) have four children and enjoy living in Wyoming.


Pastor, what Bible is good to use? NOT the NIV 2011 — 119 Comments

  1. @Rev. Paul T. McCain #42
    Oh, by the way, when the champion of this translation is the same guy that denies the Holocaust and champions a bunch of non-Lutheran fundamentalists, that’s not a really good recommendation.
    Just sayin’

    @Rev. Paul T. McCain #44
    Excuse me while I laugh, loudly, and and for a long time.
    Next thing you know, he’ll tell me that the Holocaust never happened.

    Hmmm. Aren’t these ad … ad … add nothing to the discussion items?

    The topic is the NIV’11, I think…

  2. Because our parish is examining the way we teach confirmation, I decided to take an in-depth investigation of the “new” catechism [Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation ESV]. …

    A corollary to the above purpose was to assess whether the ESV, adopted by LCMS, should also be the version used for Bible study classes and other groups (e.g. LWML, Youth Groups, Men’s Club, etc.). Because the New International Version (NIV) of 1984 has been discontinued and replaced by the NIV 2011, a version that implements gender-neutral language, the NIV is no longer an option for our parish. …

    The two primary concerns in my study were: first that the doctrinal teachings – particularly those tenants central to the Lutheran faith – of the Bible were carefully preserved and second that the language used was of an appropriate age level – neither too difficult nor too easy – for grades 7 and 8 students since these grades are those in our parish who receive the instruction, as has been the habit for decades. In particular, the content of the Biblical proof texts needs to be readily comprehensible for the students, both to enable comprehension of the meaning as well as to utilize vocabulary and syntax with which they are familiar to enable meaningful memorization.

    The plethora of Biblical “versions” on the market has made the latter point perhaps more salient than the first because the multiplicity of “translations” or “paraphrases” tends to confuse rather than clarify meaning. Having spent 36 years in the education field, I have a fair background to enable assessment for a particular age group. With the text of the ESV, as presented in the LSC as the basis, I examined also the King James (the standard for decades), the AAT (An American Translation by Rev. Dr. William Beck) and, as necessary, consulted the Greek text for clarification.

    An American Translation is a somewhat less literal translation than the ESV and it uses a more colloquial vocabulary, common to the USA and Canada today. However, the grammar leaves no lack of correct doctrine, expressed in today’s American English, but based on the Hebrew and Greek texts. …

    I have chosen to replace the ESV version of the text offered in the Catechism with the AAT in 224 instances (including duplicate use of verses), clarifying for the confirmands the meaning in the proof texts and hopefully making memorization easier.

    A Review: Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation
    English Standard Version, Concordia Publishing House 2008
    Arnold F. Pittao
    Lloydminster, Alberta
    August 20, 2012
    Christian News
    August 27, 2012

  3. Thanks for pointing the bad information on our web site to me. That’s very old ad copy, no doubt has been there for a long time. We’ll get it corrected/removed this week.

    At the time, it was the best we could offer.

    Now, however, there is something much better. Much. Better.

  4. Really, do we have to repudiate and badmouth the Concordia Self-Study Bible? Granted, in many ways the LSB is better, but CSSB was a huge advance when it was published, and I am tremendously grateful that it was available for so long.

  5. I really like the AAT. Of all the translations, I consider this one is the best for seeing Christ. Beck did an excellent job in this regard. I know it is not the most literal, but it is certainly worth owning and reading.

    I agree with others about reading the KJV with the AAT. Good stuff! I wish the AAT was in an electronic form so that I could set them up in a parallel form.

    The NKJV is a good Bible. I prefer it over the ESV. Why? The ESV – in some places – lost the cadence of the KJV. The NKJV did a better job keeping it. I find the NKJV easier to read than the ESV becasue of this. I also like the text critical footnotes. The NKJV is also very good with Messianic prophecy (following the footsteps of the KJV).

    The ESV is a fine Bible. I still notice a Calvinist slant to the translation. I find it is more wooden in places than the NKJV. I would be prefectly happy using this Bible (since very few in WELS agree with me about the NKJV and AAT).

    I also like the HCSB. It is clunky, but I disagree with Pastor McCain about it being a “baptist” translation. There are things does poorly: the 23rd Psalm, for example. But there are other things the HCSB does right – Romans 9:22-23, for example. Pastor Steve Bauer (WELS) wrote a good evaluation of the HCSB, which can be found here:

    I do not like the NIV’11 for reasons I listed early.

    The WELS will be deciding between these three translation: the NIV’11, ESV, or HCSB. I could use either the ESV or HCSB. I like both of them for different reasons.

    Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

    In Christian love,

  6. A complete list of the “replaced” texts appears in an appendix to this document.

    (Ed. Space does not permit CN to publish this entire 10 page Appendix. Interested readers may contact CN for the Appendix which clearly shows that the AAT is superior to the ESV promoted by Paul McCain and CPH.)

    A Review: Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation
    English Standard Version, Concordia Publishing House 2008
    Arnold F. Pittao
    Lloydminster, Alberta
    August 20, 2012
    Christian News
    August 27, 2012
    [email protected]

  7. I’m still missing something here, why is Beck’s AAT bad? Just because Herman Otten endorses it? You can’t control who will or will not like or endorse or like your product. To say that the AAT is bad simply because someone you don’t like likes it is an argument made not on the content of the product itself, but on the character of Otten. So on its merits alone, what is so wrong with the AAT?

  8. Following up here….

    Thanks to whomever it was who pointed out to me the outdated promotional copy on Concordia Publishing House’s web site for the Concordia Self-Study Bible.

    We are replacing that copy with the following, should be in place today or by end of this week.

    The Concordia Self-Study Bible (CSSB) provides the older version of the NIV Bible (1984) translation with Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible notes, modified by Lutheran Bible scholars.

    · introductions and outlines of each book;

    · NIV concordance for quick identification and location of important words;

    · center-column cross-reference system containing 85,000 entries which lists interrelate themes, concepts and words from the Old and New Testaments;

    · full-color maps of the Holy Land, timelines and charts that offer an informative overview of biblical history;

    · words of Christ in red;

    · gold page edges.

  9. Pastor McCall, if you check the comments in the stream, you’ll find links to several documents both from The LCMS and the WELS indicating why the AAT is not recommended for use in public worship or as a primary translation for people to use. The links are in the comments above.

  10. Review of Beck’s New Testament in the Language Of Today (1963)

    If in Solomon’s day it could be affirmed that “of making many books there is no end,” in our own day it might equally be said that of making many translations there is no end. Indeed, the proliferation of English versions of the Bible in modern times is so bewildering that each additional one ought to be required to furnish compelling justification for its existence. It is for such justification that we must look in the translation now under review.

    This work has as its commendable goal to present the Word of God in “the language of today and tomorrow.” Without question its translator has devoted many laborious hours to its production and can rightly be honored for his devotion to the Scriptures. Yet, at the same time, the total result is disappointing. The translator has evidently accepted a fallacy which more than one modern version displays, namely, that precision in presenting the thought of the original can be—or ought to be—sacrificed in the interests of clarity and readability. The New Testament in the Language of Today has clearly made this sacrifice throughout.

    A few examples must suffice. The crucial Greek word charis in John 1:14 and 1:17 has here been rendered by “love” by which means it becomes perfectly indistinguishable from the word agape (e.g., John 15:9, 10, 13), yet the two words are certainly not synonyms. Likewise, in Titus 1:5 and 7 the Greek words presbuteros and episcopos are both rendered by the English term “pastor,” which is corect for neither as well as prejudicial to the understanding of New Testament church doctrine. A doctrinal passage like Romans 7 and 8 is found to be honeycombed with interpretative renderings, some quite misleading. In Colossians 2:10 the rich phrase kai este en auto peplepomenoi becomes almost colloquial with the rendering, “And in Him … you have a full life.” And so on, for examples like these can be found on almost any page.

    The effect of this mode of New Testament translation is inevitable. There is produced thereby a version interesting enough to be read through by those seeking fresh insights, but not sufficiently accurate to be read often or studied intensively. And no translation of the Bible which fails to meet these last requirements can expect to have either a wide acceptance or an enduring value.

    Z. C. Hodges
    Bibliotheca Sacra 121 (July 1964), pp. 268-269

  11. In Memoriam, Erich H. Kiehl

    Dr. Erich Kiehl attended St. Paul’s College in Concordia, Missouri graduating in 1940. He received his Bachelor’s Degree from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis in 1942, from which he also received a Master’s of Divinity degree in 1945, a Master of Sacred Theology in 1951, and a Doctor of Theology in 1959. Dr. Kiehl served as assistant to the Pastor at Timothy Lutheran Church in St. Louis in 1946. From 1948-1960 he was Director of Planning and Research for Church-Craft Pictures, Inc. Starting in 1960, he was editor of Weekday Materials for the LCMS Board for Parish Education.

    In addition to numerous publications in the area of Christian Education, he authored Building Your Biblical Studies Library (1988) and The Passion of our Lord (1990; reissued by Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002). In addition, from 1971-1975 he revised the New Testament portion of The Holy Bible: An American Translation (1976), originally completed by William F. Beck in 1963.

    Dr. Kiehl died on June 13, 2012, aged 91 years

    Rev. Dr. Mark Schuler, Professor of Religion & Theology, Concordia University-St. Paul
    Concordia Theology
    August 2, 2012

  12. If, in fact, this is true…
    “Now, however, there is something much better. Much. Better.”

    and better, sorry “BETTER”, could be defined as…

    1) “the most excellent product after the time of the invention of baked wheat loaf separated by human digits and/or mechanical methodology ”

    2) or in CPH translation, “the best BEST thing since sliced bread…”

    Why was it not quite good enough for CPH to use as their only translation in worship materials?

    Why didn’t/doesn’t CPH choose(deem) to use it EXCLUSIVELY and CONSISTENTLY as their sole(soul) translation, in the LSB, the Pastoral Companion, etc.

    Certainly not because the ESV is not sound, it is. But, rather because of how it “sounds”

    Now there is text critical methodology at work…


    Preface to the King James Version 1611


    Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world.

    It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks:
    and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.

    This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience. For, was there ever any-projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying, or opposition? A man would think that Civility, wholesome Laws, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Church-maintenance, (that we speak of no more things of this kind) should be as safe as a Sanctuary, and out of shot, as they say, that no man would lift up the heel, no, nor dog move his tongue against the motioners of them. For by the first, we are distinguished from brute beasts lead with sensuality;
    By the second, we are bridled and restrained from outrageous behaviour, and from doing of injuries, whether by fraud or by violence;
    By the third, we are enabled to inform and reform others, by the light and feeling that we have attained unto ourselves;
    Briefly, by the fourth being brought together to a parley face to face, we sooner compose our differences than by writings which are endless;

    And lastly, that the Church be sufficiently provided for, is so agreeable to good reason and conscience, that those mothers are holden to be less cruel, that kill their children as soon as they are born, than those nursing fathers and mothers (wheresoever they be) that withdraw from them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose breasts again themselves do hang to receive the Spiritual and sincere milk of the word) livelihood and support fit for their estates.
    Thus it is apparent, that these things which we speak of, are of most necessary use, and therefore, that none, either without absurdity can speak against them, or without note of wickedness can spurn against them.

    But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible.

    Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Trans- lation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,
    (for then the im- putation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:)

    but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

    Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”


  14. Just learned that Zondervan is doing something really quite deceitful. They are not telling consumers that the NIV Bible they are purchasing is the new form of the translation, there is *nothing* on the packaging or the Bibles to indicate it is NIV2011. They only way to tell is if you check the copyright date: 2011.

    They are very obviously trying to prevent consumers from knowing they are getting a new form of the NIV.


    Read this word of warning:

  15. Larry, you write:

    Why didn’t/doesn’t CPH choose(deem) to use it EXCLUSIVELY and CONSISTENTLY as their sole(soul) translation, in the LSB, the Pastoral Companion, etc.

    First, I don’t know if you were around/in the ministry during the years of the preparation of the new hymnal and all companion volumes, but that content was prepared by the Commission on Worship, LCMS.

    We have in fact switched over to the ESV in all our materials, wherever and whenever we can. It is used across all our curriculum pieces and periodicals and it is our translation of choice in all publications.

  16. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9 (NIV 1984)

    The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
    2013 National Youth Gathering
    San Antonio, Texas
    July 1-5, 2013

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.