"The three men I admire most / The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"
So here's an interesting one. There's apparently a big brouhaha in the Christian publishing world over some new resources (Bibles and Bible story collections) designed for missionary work among Muslims because they've changed the terms "Father" and "Son" and "Son of God" because of possible offense it causes to Muslims (including those being engaged with by the missionaries).
Instead, we get "Lord" and "Allah" and "Messiah."
Controversy ensues because those are essentially mistranslations for the sake of either not turning off potential converts or to avoid trouble in the countries they are visiting.
Leaving aside the whole "missionary" thing, I have to go with the orthodox side here. I understand wanting to be both respectful (and avoid trouble), but you don't do so through deceit — not if you're claiming to be representing God.
Jesus as the Son of God is well grounded in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity and the Trinitarian nature of the relationship between the Father and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) is actually non-Biblical (it developed, with quite a bit of controversy, during the early centuries of the Church, and eventually anything that didn't use the Trinitarian model was declared by various Church councils to be heretical). That makes the headline of the article below a bit misleading itself.
Still, the Trinity idea — not just the filial nature of Jesus to the Father, but that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are all mysteriously one while being distinct entities, is a fundamental belief in modern Christianity. Hiding that info up front in missionary work sounds more like gnosticism than orthodox Christianity, and doesn't serve anyone well. I don't expect missionaries to dive into a discussion of the Trinity, but orthodox Christianity relies on the Father/Son thang, making Jesus more than just the Messiah.
Ironically, it calls to mind an historical controversy in the US. Thomas Jefferson edited a bowdlerized version of the New Testament, leaving in Jesus' teachings and his life story, but excising any supernatural elements. A version of this document referenced it as being designed for missionary work among the Indians (though it was never published a such, and there's plenty of evidence that the reference was more as a "cover" for Jefferson's heterodoxy).
Pseudo-historians like David Barton like to claim that this was a completely legitimate and orthodox thing for Jefferson to have wanted to do, distributing a non-supernatural Bible as a means of engaging with the Indians about good moral teachings without having to overcome their incredulity about the miracles. I have to wonder, then, what Barton thinks of this particular contretemps. #ddtb
Reshared post from +Victoria Hudgins
Embedded Link
'Father' and 'Son' Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations
A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words "Father" and "Son" from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translat…
It was probably easier to deal with this situation when the natives couldn't read the language. "Oh, no, that word there means (fill in the name of your local deity here."
"Sts. iPod and Kindle? I don't know what you're talking about. They were BOTH canonized in the late 17th century as Spanish missionaries in the New World."
"Brigid? No, no, man, she's not a goddess, she's just a saint. So you can keep praying to her, but be sure and attend Mass every Sunday when you do."
I think St iPod was Portuguese.
"Small, and sleek, and full of tunes,
The Saint from iPodnema beats Zune …"
Snert snert snert…