The Gospel According to the Conservative Bible Project

by Ernesto Tinajero 10-07-2009

Recently, the Conservative Bible Project has made some headlines. If you are not familiar with the project, it is an attempt to remove liberal biases from the Bible from the folks at Conservapedia. The criteria they use include things like using “powerful conservative terms,” and avoiding wordiness. The thinking is liberals are verbose and obscure. They aim to recast Jesus into their image. While it may easy to poke fun at this exercise, or make a flippant remark about conservatives in general, it says something deeper about our relationship to scripture and Jesus. First, it is very important to note that many conservatives have come out against this project. So I do not believe that this is mainstream conservative thinking.

Now looking at the details can illustrate how we humans want to remake the Bible and Jesus into our images. Mark 7.21-22 is translated to “Because, from inside of the heart come evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder, theft, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lustfulness, an evil eye, blasphemy, unwarranted pride, and foolishness.” The major difference is that “pride” is rendered “unwarranted pride.” The idea is that there are some prides that are warranted. For Conservapedia, pride is a good thing and as such Jesus must have meant pride that was unearned and had to endorse earned pride. Being prideful fits into their worldview about being self-reliant, so Jesus must have attacked unwarranted pride.

Of course, this flies in face our need of God’s grace and need for a humble heart. Jesus’ words challenge Consevapedia’s worldview. They also challenge my worldview, as they should. The truth is, all Christians try to remake God into our image. This is the very definition of the sin of pride. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and Christians all have fallen short of the glory of God. Then we try to use God as justification for our own biases, making the word of God an echo chamber.

Once, a theology professor made a comment I keep coming back to. He said if you read the Bible and it does not challenge you, then you are reading yourself and not the Bible. Many times reading the Bible, I have had to confront something in myself that I wish to avoid. “Love my enemies” means wishing they would come to my way thinking? Right?

portrait-ernesto-tinajero1 Ernesto Tinajero is a freelance writer in Spokane, Washington, who earned his master’s degree in theology from Fuller Seminary. Visit his blog at beingandfaith.blogspot.com.

Categories: Faith and Politics, Theology

Tags: Bible, Christ, Conservative, consevapedia, echo chamber, faith, God, Gospel, human, Jesus, Scripture, Theology, word of god, worldview

tmamone

I don't get the whole Conservative Bible Project thing. Seems to me they're doing the same thing they accuse other Bible translaters of doing: distorting the Bible to fit their own political means. And soem fo the accusations just don't make sense! For example, according to Conservapedia, Luke 23:34 supposedly wasn't in the original manuscripts, so apparently it's "a liberal corruption of the original." But that verse is in the King James Version, so I guess that means the Left's been promoting their socialist agenda since the thirteenth century. Man, those libs are crafty!

NMRod

Uh, 17th century.

tmamone

In that case, I guess according to Conservapedia the Left's been promotion socialist agenda since the 17th century.

Ivriniel

Is it found in the Latin Vulgate? If so that would push this conspiracy back a way.

theFriendlyFundy

I've seen this story several times this week, and these folks are clearly only 'conservative' with regard to their political ideology.

paradoxtor

While I would disagree with much of the criteria and probably most of the translation by this group, I do agree that there is an issue of bias in translation. Is there something to be said for their overt admission of their bias (even thought they do not see it as such.) I think that anyone on either end of the sprectrum or anywhere in between is either dishonest or naive if they think they are not biased. The best we can do is to approach it with humility, recognize that we do have bias (those we realize and some we don't) and ask God for His grace. It is easy to see the bias in the other side. Much harder to see our own.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

I have often mused about the "Power of Pride" bumper stickers- the ones with the American flag in the background and, especially when I saw them on cars in my old church parking lot, wondered if people ever made the connection that pride a sin. I struggle with pride myself, so I'm not pointing fingers here. It's just that I'm acutely aware of the issue.

It's interesting that the "Conservative Bible" is conveniently attempting to skirt around this issue- making certain kinds of pride, "warranted" pride, OK somehow. They are trying to reconcile an aspect of a particular worldview, in this case American nationalism, that is in conflict with biblical teaching. Slippery ground.

Hannity2

Unfortunately this is the kind of thing that gives conservatives a bad name. We are called to make disciples, not republicans or democrats. This version is shameful. I would hope my liberal friends will say the same thing about the "Green" Bible. Both versions take the glory from God and put it on a particular political viewpoint.

BuckeyeDon

You're comparing apples to oranges here. I have a copy of the Green Bible. Do you? Unlike this "conservative" so-called "Bible," the Green Bible makes no alterations to the text; none whatsoever. It's a standard English translation. And it certainly takes no glory away from God! Quite the contrary, actually--it reminds us of the glory due to God for the wondrous world he created for us.

The only thing the Green Bible does is highlight those passages that discuss firstly, God's intimate care of and involvement with Creation; secondly, how all the elements of Creation are interdependent; thirdly, how Creation responds to God; and finally, how we as God's people are called to care for Creation (p. I-16). That's it. It highlights passages that reflect on these four topics. It does not promote a particular viewpoint; it only points out teachings that are right there in the Bible and have been there all along, but that have been rather neglected by believers in relatively recent times.

To be sure, the originators and developers of the Green Bible brought with the project their convictions about our need to care for Creation. But that in no way compares to the altering of the text of the Bible to promote a particular political ideology. The Green Bible is not a study Bible with notes that promote a particular interpretation of the highlighted passages. It only contains the Bible text itself; different people can read the highlighted passages and interpret them in different ways.

calledme

I haven't read the "New Conservative Bible" yet; I haven't read the "Green Bible" either. But the comment sounds suspiciously like tit-for-tat: "I a conservative, proclaim that I do not like or agree with the Conservative Bible. In return, I expect you who are liberal (who judges?) in return to denounce the Green Bible which, appearing liberal, clearly is not a faithful translation." It's not content that bothers me; it's the request that in response to a conservative thumbs-down on a self-proclaimed conservative project, you expect liberals to agree with you re: the project you don't like. I won't know how I feel re: the Green Bible till I read it, and the only faithful response I can offer is the one to which I'm led by the Holy Spirit, not negotiation.

JohnH54

Stupid.

xfree9

Yep. Deplorable.

SisterMarie

Writing one's own Bible version to be congruent with some preconceived ideas is really just kind of redundant. No matter which version is used, we're always going to have groups of individuals who claim to have some special insight into what some particular passage says or means. The proliferation of religious organizations, each of which proclaim some divine revelation has filled the bookstore shelves and has probably done more to confuse the unchurched than anything else. The sad thing is that it has diverted the attention of the church away from its divine mission.

NMRod

I can just imagine what kind of damage they're going to do to Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

Incidentally, conservatives like Rod Dreher, whose blog is linked above as opposing this, are persona non gratis and seen as heretical defectors to what's being touted as the "true" conservative faith after the recent conservative crackup. In fact Rod's even self-styled as a "crunchy con" - conservatives who are into granola and ecology.

tmamone

Even though I'm not a conservative (I like to call myself a "tree-hugging peacenik"), I like Rod's blog. He's one of the few conservative writers who are actually reasonable.

BuckeyeDon

I agree. Rod Dreher is fun to read, as well as informative.

RadicalChristianLibrarian

Yes, interesting thought- I wonder what the translation of the Sermon on the Mount is going to look like. (shudder)

scat

What a hoot!! We shouldn't be surprised. They have already been trying to rewrite history, insurance provisions, even video-taped commentaries. Let them have their own little world. It's up to the rest of us to keep our wits about us and deal with the real world.

yaoihuntressearth

I wonder how they're going to handle this verse:

Acts 2:42-46

42.They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43.Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44.All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45.Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46.Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47.praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

And how will they handle some of the highly sexual aspects of the good book like Lot and his daughters.

Ngchen

FWIW, the standard conservative read on Acts 2 that you mentioned is that the communitarian behavior described was completely voluntary. In imitation of this, many conservatives are *very* communal and helpful with fellow conservatives at their churches.

IMHO, the conservative reading is not necessarily incorrect in this case, although I do believe that charity should extend beyond the church itself.