Why is Rolling Stone scared of the Bible?

The editors at Rolling Stone magazine have determined that an ad promoting a new Bible for "spiritually intrigued 18-34 year olds" is too religious to appear in the historic rock and roll publication.

Zondervan had attempted to place an ad in the magazine for its new Today's New International Version Bible. Ad space was initially sold to Zondervan before the ad was ultimately disapproved.

The ad reads: "In a world of almost endless media noise and political spin, you wonder where you can find real truth. Well, now there's a source that's accurate, clear and reliable. It's the TNIV – Today's New International Version of the Bible. It's written in today's language, for today's times – and it makes more sense than ever."

Kent Brownridge, general manager for Rolling Stone's parent company Wenner Media, told USA Today that the Zondervan ad "doesn't quite feel right in the magazine."

"The copy is a little more than an ad for the Bible," Mr. Brownridge added. "It's a religious message that I personally don't disagree with."

By the way, I'm not familiar with this Bible translation and have not endorsed it. But that's not the issue. The concern here is that in the alleged culture of "diversity," we are actually seeing a burgeoning atmosphere of repression when it comes to issues of faith.

This controversy comes down to one question: Where is the harm in running the Zondervan ad in a secular publication?

I'm not asserting that the editors at Rolling Stone hate religion. Mr. Brownridge proclaimed that he didn't disagree with it. But I am increasingly concerned with this perspective of absolute secularism that prohibits the religious community from participating in the free flow of cultural ideas.

I doubt if Rolling Stone would have seen a mass exodus among its subscriber base if it had approved the Zondervan ad. And I doubt if the publication's editors even feared such a response. It appears that they simply did not want a religious message – and particularly one from an evangelical perspective – to be in their publication. While the editors say they "are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages," this still stinks of censorship.

So what does one find at Rolling Stone? A search of the publication's website reveals political content (President Bush's Social Security policy is a "con"), music themes (singer Gwen Stefani appears on the home page posing in a bra) and plenty of rock and roll excess (including a "big pimpin'" interview with jeweler Chris Aire).

The folks at Zondervan determined that they would like to offer a ray of spiritual hope to a rock and rap audience that may not typically think about matters of faith and eternity. But apparently, rock and roll and the Bible do not mix – at least not at Rolling Stone.

The Great Commission of Matthew 28 tells us that Christians are to be perpetual beacons of hope to the world. The Zondervan team was simply trying to follow this biblical mandate by taking the message of God's Word to a new secular audience. It's tragic that they were shut out.

Thankfully, other secular outlets – including The Onion (hardly a bastion of conservative religious values), MTV.com, VH-1 and America Online – have accepted the Zondervan ad. I commend each of them for operating under a policy of openness to religious expression.

And I urge the leadership at Rolling Stone to reconsider their decision to ban the ad. In the spirit of freedom of the press, I ask that they allow Zondervan to offer Rolling Stone readers an opportunity to look into this new Bible translation. I imagine most Rolling Stone readers would say they are mature enough to handle a small dose of the Bible in the publication.

Dean Bruce W. Green of the Liberty University School of Law has announced that the law school will offer full and partial tuition scholarships to qualified applicants for the Fall 2005 entering class, crediting the success of the law school's inaugural class and Liberty University's commitment to reward meritorious applicants. The 60 members of the Fall 2004 inaugural class, representing 22 states and 47 undergraduate universities, all received full or partial tuition scholarships.

Dean Green said, "We are delighted to have the opportunity once again to recognize our highly qualified applicants who show great promise for success in law school and in the legal community."

Interested readers should visit the Liberty University School of Law website: http://law.liberty.edu/.

Please pardon me if my choice of verse was confusing. TNIV is a feminist, homosexual activist bible. As the first NIV deleted references to sodomites and had two homosexuals on its revision team, the TNIV takes those efforts one more "gradualist" step.

A quick search in google.com ("TNIV" without the quotation marks) yielded the following, along with many other such sites.

http://www.no-tniv.com/

I put the verse in my comment to show that Christianity in practice changed much during the late 1800s, and more recently, since the early 1970s, our Father does not change at all.

Information on the first NIV follows.

The NIV, in Deuteronomy 23:17, says, "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."

The KJV says in Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

"Sodomite" is a word that I haven't found in the NIV.

A feminist lesbian named Virginia Mollenkott helped to write the NIV. Here's some info on Mollenkott.

The New International Version - 1978
http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/kjv/mouth4.htm#niv

Let's read something else Ms. Mollenkott had to say.

{2}Virginia Mollenkott wrote, in a letter to Christian Century (March 7, 1984, p. 252), "I am beginning to wonder whether indeed Christianity is patriarchal to its very core. If so, count me out. Some of us may be forced to leave Christianity in order to participate in Jesus' discipleship of equals."

I saw that on the following book page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter26.html
"Charity, Clarity, and Hope: The Controversy and the Cause of Christ," John Piper and Wayne Grudem

"Two New Organizations: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Christians for Biblical Equality"

(Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood A Response to Evangelical Feminism Wayne Grudem and John Piper)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And that's the older NIV, by the way--not the new "gender inclusive" version.

Of Barker's statement (Wayne Jackson, _From Their Own Mouths - Bible Modifiers_):

"This is a very cleverly worded statement and one which we can allow Virginia Mollenkott to answer herself. In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:

[Virginia Mollenkott writes] "I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept "homosexual" is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history."

"Somewhere in my files is the letter I got thanking me for my work on the NIV when the project was completed. I also have the slipcase version sent out to the whole NIV team in 1978 by Zondervan; and I have the tenth-anniversary edition sent out to the whole team in 1988 by the International Bible Society. Various other editions were also sent out gratis to the translation committee and stylists, but I have received nothing since 1988 that I can remember. Because I am idealistic and sincere, it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about my contributions, so I was not meticulous about keeping records. Thank you for anything you can do to set the record straight. You may utilise this letter to do so, and I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of anything you generate. Sincerely, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott."

...thus, one of many rebuttals to Barker. And there were the opinions of the homosexual NIV translator Chairman on homosexuality, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra (Michael Penfold's research, Woudstra's report for the Christian Reformed Church, 1973, Blair, Boomsma, his other colleagues).

Woudstra told the Christian Reformed Church, "There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today."

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17, KJV).

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, KJV).

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13, KJV). "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel" (I King 14:24,KJV). "And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made" (I King 15:12,KJV). "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," (1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV). "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26-27, King James).

As time goes on, nearly all people who identity as Christians are getting more mystical, charismatic, anti-family, spiritualist, and less moral.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.