Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Christian

'Rolling Stone' Rejects Zondervan Ad

Recommended Posts

Story here.

Lame but predictable decision.

Rolling Stone is pretty much past its prime anyway - not that that makes the decision right. It's still lame.

But I'd bet the Onion ad will reach a lot more of the target audience.

Huh, this could almost be an Onion story, come to think of it ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me most about this situation is not RS's decision to pull the ad at the last minute. I would expect RS's agenda to dam this kind of press anyway. (Although I still subscribe, as they are one of the best places to keep up with what might interest me in new music releases.)

No, what bothers me the most is the side story concerning the outrage of many evangelicals about the abomination of "changing" God's perfect word. Notably, a large percentage of the TNIV bible's detractors are KJV only "purists". Rather than waste all that time and energy fighting these ridiculously minor battles and alienating everybody in your wake, couldn't you just be happy about the potential of such a project? (And with "you" I am obviously referring to the boneheads who are protesting the publishing of the TNIV.)

I don't know about everyone else, but my God is bigger than the printed word anyway. If everything I believed in depended on the page, I would be in dyer need of something else. Regardless of the translation.

The tedium of these people's minds astound me sometimes. Why would any Christians, (I don't care who you are) criticize the attempts of others to get God's message out, unless they were just too damn narrow-minded to see past their own church's front doors? Hmmmpph!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything about KJV-only purism in the article. I don't know Dr. Grudem, but I share some of the concerns over gender-neutralized Bible translations. The article gives a particularly good example of a dicey revision: Where the writer to the Hebrews says "God is treating you as sons" the TNIV gives "God is treating you as children," which, sorry, does not convey the same sense of filial treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Count me as 'too damn narrow-minded,' then, for I had the opposite reaction.

I was concerned that MORE people weren't upset by the adaptations--but this has nothing to do with 'KJV only "purists".' Why in the world do we need ANOTHER (minor) Bible version? Are we reading the ones we already have? Isn't it enough that we pitch "devotional" versions to every target market imaginable? Apple's design scheme for personalizing iPods and iMacs may work fine for media players and computers, but Bibles?

Has scripture become just another 'product' to be 'marketed' to various demographics?

I *am* very concerned about such adaptations, and also have a lot of respect for Dr. Grudem. I've heard him speak and interacted with him personally; he used to be on the faculty of Gordon-Conwell, IIRC (and has a very high few of art in the life of a Christian).

And of course: Rolling Stone is obsolete. Heck, even Spin was getting tired when I was managing a (major) college radio station ten years ago. Subscribe to Paste!

I took a look at the TNIV debate transcript between Dr. Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss, and they both had their valid points to make. And my whole thing with putting KJV only purists in the opposing corner, I guess, had more to do with my spiritually repressive upbringing. I'll save that bone for another time.

I guess my concern with this whole debate has to do with our own cannibalism. It just seems like there are two camps that always try to squelch any "progress" (and I am aware that I am using that term lightly) among other evangelicals. Those who are simply consumed with legalism and those who are fighting a theological debate. This one battle obviously has to do with the latter. I just know that for me, I could haggle about literary content or even inerrancy of the scriptures, (God forbid), forever, but it wouldn't matter. Because it's all ironed out in the end. And all the debate boils down to the Holy Spirit and action. Far be it from me to argue one more "remixing" of scriptures, whether I like it or not. I don't have to prefer it - I just don't think I can dispute it. I would say we needed another Starbucks before I would suggest another devotional bible. But track lighting and bad coffee will just burn away. If someone want to get out the scriptures, in whatever form, and that attracts more attention to God's word, than I think that's a good thing. Isn't it? And meanwhile, we'll put another one on the stack. Hey, if billion dollar ad campaigns by Apple switch long-time pc users to mac converts, how can this be so wrong that we need to rail against it?

God love you both Dr. Grudem and Dr Strauss. Lets all sit down and have a beer together in Feb when the TNIV comes out.

And I will try Paste on for size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tedium of these people's minds astound me sometimes.  Why would any Christians, (I don't care who you are) criticize the attempts of others to get God's message out, unless they were just too damn narrow-minded to see past their own church's front doors?  Hmmmpph!

No, I understand it. I work at a church where the previous pastor preached out of something other than the KJV, so people left. (There were other factors involved, naturally, but that's cited as the main reason.)

As far as the TNIV, I don't know. I've not been thrilled by it's desire to be so gender-inclusive that they change the meaning of the original texts.

And yes, you should try Paste. If Rolling Stone included a CD with great music on it even once a month, I might still have been a subscriber.

Alan - you've met Grudem? Glad to hear that he appreciates art more than most Evanglical theologians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more story:

----------------------------

Rolling Stone magazine accepted advertising for a company selling a T-shirt emblazoned with the image of Jesus Christ. Indeed, a color ad with the image of Jesus and the message, "Put down the drugs and come get a hug," appears on page 71 of the current issue.

But when it came to running an ad for a new Bible aimed at twentysomethings, the magazine said forget it.

-----------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TNIV roundtable discussion I helped organize while I was at Crosswalk.

Particpants include Grudem, Youngblood, Bayly and Strauss.

I'm theologically conservative and don't care for many of the newer translations (ESV is a major exception), but the debate here left me leaning toward the pro-TNIV side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<Edit knee-jerk reaction>

I guess I'm not too surprised by this development. I'm still wondering if they rejected it on the basis that it was a Bible or that it was published by Zondervan (which is a division of Rupert Murdock's News Corp, who also owns Fox.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to Rolling Stone, they're idiots.

As to the Bible translation, I reckon they can publish whatever Bible they want. The only person they have to answer to is God. THANK GOD FOR THAT.

*wanders off grumpy*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...