Leadership Reflections

Most leaders are trained to think in terms of mission and vision statements. I’m one of them. But CCCC has adopted Carver Policy Governance® and that requires an End statement. So how many strategic statements do you need? And which one has priority? For leaders who think in terms of vision and mission but who live in a policy governance environment, here’s a case study of how I’m dealing with the issue at CCCC.

End Statements

I’ve already provided the traditional definitions of vision and mission: vision explains why the organization exists (what it wants to accomplish) and mission is its overarching strategy for accomplishing the vision. Now let’s remind ourselves what an End statement is.  According to John Carver, End statements:

• define which human needs are to be met (usually shortened to “what good”), for whom, and at what cost. Written with a long term perspective, these mission-related policies embody the board’s long-range vision. (CarverGuide 1: Basic Principles of Policy Governance)
• are developed in terms of the mission to be accomplished, its outcomes. (CarverGuide 6: Creating a Mission That Makes A Difference)
• Ends are not about intentions. Carver criticizes a statement that says the commitment is that the organization will “seek to bring” the good works to people. Good intentions are insufficient because you don’t actually have to do anything to fulfill the mission.
• Ends are not about what the organization does or what it values. Another statement that Carver criticizes says the association will provide “support…in an effective and caring manner.” It doesn’t say what difference it will make.
• Ends are not about activity. Carver says to be wary of any prominent verbs in the End statement. Ensure Ends refer only to outcomes.

Although Carver used to describe the End statement as a specific type of mission statement, he rarely uses the word mission anymore because it can lead the board astray from policy governance into less rigorous, less theory-based practice. He says if the staff wants to have a mission statement, it can have one because having a mission statement is a means (the organization’s strategy), not an end. It might be good for public relations or inspiring staff, for example, so if it is helpful you can have one, but it is not a part of policy governance. (Boards That Make A Difference p 84.)

The examples he gives for “at what cost” are “at a competitive cost”, “at a reasonable cost”, and at a cost “no greater than comparable associations.” Carver approves of one example that does not mention cost but says he does not recommend it. He says cost can be left out because the Executive Limitation against imprudence imposes a ceiling on costs in relation to benefits anyway, but he fears that the cost element may get lost among the Limitations (Boards That Make A Difference p 92-93) to which I say, “Surely not!”

Let’s ditch the cost factor!

Strategic statements need to be succinct and powerful. They need to motivate board, staff, donors and other stakeholders. Statements of the obvious are not powerful and just add unnecessary verbiage. They sap energy and are completely uninspiring. So here are my reasons why (in most cases) you should leave cost out of the End statement:

• The sample Carver-approved End Statements all have what I would call “motherhood” cost statements. Would anyone say they will produce their good at an “uncompetitive cost”, at an “unreasonable cost” or “at a cost greater than comparable associations”? I think not! What ‘value’ does the value component of the End Statement contribute? The only time a ‘motherhood’ statement is useful is when it hasn’t been true for a particular organization. So if a ministry has been woefully inefficient in its operations and wildly overspending on programs with no commensurate benefits, then the board may want to bump the cost factor up to the End statement and limit spending to what is reasonable or comparable to other ministries. Otherwise such a statement adds no value.
• The issue of costs can be quite adequately dealt with through three mechanisms other than the End Statement:
1. Executive Limitations and budget: The board can say that the CEO shall not allow programs to operate at an unreasonable cost relative to other providers. It can set whatever limitations it wants around how the budget is developed. Then it can do a direct inspection of the budget by asking management to explain how decisions were made about allocating resources to the various programs, administration and fundraising. It can then check that those decisions comply with the Executive Limitations.
2. Corporate values: The board can also insert into the corporate values a statement about being good stewards of the ministry’s resources. One of the tests to run before approving any organizational decision, at the board or staff level, is to assess the recommended decision against the corporate values to see if it aligns.
3. Organizational and program evaluations: The board can require that program evaluations be done to ensure they are effective and efficient. Cost/benefit analysis will ensure that costs are reasonable. An organizational evaluation examines the bigger picture, looking at how well the ministry is accomplishing its End statement. This corporate-wide evaluation examines spending on administration and fundraising, thus ensuring that all costs are tested for reasonableness.

My recommendation is to leave cost out of the End Statement unless management has demonstrated poor judgment in this area and needs to have costs highlighted at this level. Otherwise, the shorter the End statement, the better.

A case study

A vision statement is a picture of the final condition an organization wishes to see. The draft that we have been working with at CCCC is: A vibrant community of exemplary Christian ministries working together to effectively fulfill their missions.

A mission statement describes the overarching strategy to accomplish the vision. Our draft mission statement is We are the Canadian Council of Christian Charities and we are privileged to develop Christian ministries into strong, healthy organizations that serve Jesus Christ with integrity. This is written in the format of a Statement Zero, which I find highly motivational. (You can find out more about Statement Zero by clicking on the tag “Statement Zero.”) The strategy for seeing exemplary ministries is to help them serve Christ with integrity, while the strategy for helping them effectively fulfill their missions is to help them be strong and healthy organizations. Each of those key words can be unpacked as to what we mean by them.

If you have to choose only one statement as the basis for crafting an End statement, start with the vision because it depicts the external change that you want to cause. Here are the steps we went through as a staff at CCCC to come up with a draft End statement for the board to consider at our June board retreat:

1. It didn’t take long to decide for whom the good will be done — our members. We recognize that our influence goes far beyond our members, mostly through the 127 denominational offices that are members, but we can only commit ourselves to doing good for our members.
2. The longest and most difficult conversation the board and staff have had has been about our claim — our stake in the ground — against which we will measure our success. The stake has to be outside our organizational boundary. The outcomes belong to our members not us. The change that we make is outside of ourselves. We were stuck on our role in creating the change. Do we build? Develop? Assist? We finally decided the strongest claim we could make is that our members will be something as a result of using our services. So instead of saying “CCCC develops…”, we now say “CCCC members will be…” The stake in the ground is still there. If we determine that our members are not what we want to see, then we have to take ownership of our failure to achieve the expected outcomes by asking:
• Were we not persuasive enough?
• Did we show them step-by-step how to do it?
• Were we not relevant?
• Did we communicate in an understandable way?
• Did we understand the real issues faced by our members?
• What are we missing?
3. The good that we want to do for our members is whatever it takes for them to become a vibrant community of exemplary, healthy and effective Christian ministries.
4. We finally dropped reference to the vibrant community because that is a secondary goal that we have but it is not our primary focus.

The final version of the End statement that the staff is recommending to the board is short but powerful:

CCCC members will be exemplary, healthy and effective ministries.

We then developed a two sentence commentary on what we mean by the End statement:

Within the CCCC community, ministries find practical, expert resources to help fulfill their missions and demonstrate a compelling Christian witness. They choose to access our services to heighten their performance, enhance their sustainability, and stimulate their creativity.

These statements reflect our hopes for Christian ministries and outline the work that CCCC needs to do:

• We want them to share best practices with each other, so we must prepare a way for them to receive resources from CCCC and each other.
• How they operate will be a powerful witness of applied Christian faith, so we need to talk about theology in action.
• They will be high-performing organizations with sufficient resources of money and people to endure until their mission is accomplished, so we need to help them attract people and money.
• With the inflow of new ideas they will be always looking for better ways of operating, so we need to highlight what’s new in organizational leadership and operations.

Would you share your own End statement compared to the former vision and mission statements? Let’s help those who are struggling with Ends to see how others have made the conversion.

First of all – just a quick note to say, “I’m back!” I had an unintended two month break from blogging. I was simply overwhelmed with other writing, the strategic review, and a whole slew of speaking engagements and travel. The good news is, I have a lot to blog about.

A CCCC member called me this week with an interesting question: How do you develop a sense of fellowship and team when board members never see each other? His directors come from all across Canada and the ministry does not have the budget to fly them to a face-to-face meeting. I believe in this particular case, the directors have never actually met each other and everything is done by conference call. So how do you help them become a team as opposed to a group of individuals?

Off the top of my head, I gave a number of suggestions and the member wrote them down and then emailed them back to me. Voilà! My first dictated blog post! Whether your directors never meet in person or they do but you would like to build camaraderie, here are some relationship-building ideas.

For In-Person or Virtual Meetings

•  Provide directors with a bio and photo of every board member. At CCCC we have a board website that has all this information
• Don’t make your board meetings all business. Build relationship development into the meeting. It’s worth the time. You want directors to think of each other not only as fellow directors (a role) but as fellow human beings who live in a particular context.
• Have directors share what attracted them to the ministry in the first place, and why they are still involved
• When people travel to attend a meeting they have time to decompress from previous activities and focus on the upcoming meeting. When it is by telephone, they could have just left one meeting to immediately join this one. So give people a chance to get their head into the meeting by asking everyone to share what is on their mind, how they are, right at the start of the meeting. “Where are you at?” is the thrust of this question. As they check in with each other, they’ll learn a lot about their peers.
• Pray for each other. If everyone has shared what’s happening in their lives, you’ll probably have some things to pray for, either in thanksgiving or in petition. Don’t have one person pray for everyone, but the chair could ask Bob to pray for Sheila, and so on.
• Give people a chance to share their reflective thoughts. When they do, you will gain insight into who they are.
• I got this idea from the CCCC chair, Barry Slauenwhite (president of Compassion Canada). Have your board read a book together and then each director reviews a chapter at the meeting. They can not only talk about the ideas in the chapter, but talk about how it intersects with their own life experiences. At CCCC we reviewed a book on governance last year and this upcoming meeting the board will be reviewing a book on strategy.
• Have directors take turns giving the devotional. You really get to know a person through the devotionals they choose to share.
• Have directors do presentations to the board that are developmental or background in nature. They probably present lots of business or committee reports, but that doesn’t give much opportunity for their personality and history to be presented. So for board development time have a director research and present on some aspect of governance or the general trends in your ministry sector. Encourage them to add their own personal thoughts on the topic.
• There is nothing like a hypothetical discussion to help people open up with each other. Because it is not a real situation, stress levels are low. Nothing is at stake. So conduct what Miriam Carver calls “board rehearsals.” Take a hypothetical situation and divide into groups and have each group discuss, “If this really happened, how would the board handle it?” If you woke up one day to see the face of your executive director plastered on the front page of a national paper with an unpleasant headline attached, what would happen step-by-step? Carver has co-written a book called The Board Member’s Playbook: Using Policy Governance to Solve Problems, Make Decisions, and Build a Stronger Board in which she has numerous scenarios for the board to chew over. This kind of discussion will be very different than it would be in a real situation. The benefit is that not only do directors have fun with each other discussing a risk-free topic, but they are practicing the skills that might be needed some day if the real thing happens.
• Build a common identity for the group through the ministry’s culture and values. It is important that a team knows “who we are.”
• Board orientation should include an historical orientation. History matters. It provides a sense of roots, a solid grounding, a context for where the ministry is at today.
• So tell the story of the ministry’s founding.
• If you can, document the sense of call that each of your senior leaders throughout your history had as it related to the ministry.
• Examine the history of your mission statements and see how they have evolved, or not.
• What are the big issues that previous boards have had to wrestle with?
• What are the core values that the ministry stands for? How have these values shaped board decisions?
• Describe the ministry’s culture. You can uncover the culture by asking:
• What is the work environment like?
• What are the attitudes that are valued?

The point of these ideas are to bring out the ‘person’ in the director so that there is better understanding of each other and some basis on which to feel a connection with the directors.

Face-to-Face Meetings

However, there is nothing like a face-to-face meeting to build a team! I was on a committee once that, like this board, had never met each other. Work got done but there was no spark, creativity was low and we just didn’t seem to be progressing in our task. Finally someone suggested, “Look, let’s just get together somewhere and talk in person!” So from all across Canada we converged and held a one day meeting and the difference was like night and day. The conference calls after that were different — they were more free and easy because finally we knew more than the person’s name and organization. We knew them as three-dimensional people.

So, a few final suggestions for building a team out of your directors:

• Build the cost of bringing your directors together at least once a year into your annual budget, find an understanding donor who will cover the cost of a board retreat, or ask your directors if they would be good enough to donate the cost of travel.
• When you are together, meet for dinner in someone’s home. About five years ago I invited my own board to my home for a home-cooked meal and an evening together. I thought it was a one-off at the time, but the feedback was so positive it has become an annual event. There is absolutely no business to discuss at my home. Directors come and sit in a relaxed environment, very different from a hotel or meeting room, and just visit with each other. This is when directors say that they really get to know each other.

Please add some more relationship-building ideas by  commenting! What do you do to build interpersonal relationships between directors?

Have you ever thought about how many choices you and your team make in a week? And every time you make a choice you set the stage for conflict. By choosing one of the possibilities, you have excluded all others and their future consequences. People will mourn to some degree the loss of what they had hoped for. They may also disagree with the outcome because they have different values, goals, preferences and risk tolerances (or have prioritized them differently). Sometime over the next few months I will address some specific aspects of conflict:

• disagreements between ministry leaders
• team members who take issue with their leaders
• Christian commentators who critique Christian ministries

Today I want to address how leaders receive and respond to conflict. When you are being criticized or challenged, how should you handle it?  I’m writing about conflict related to leadership decisions rather than to the leader personally. I’ve already dealt with criticism of a leader’s personal integrity.

Why conflict?

It is pretty rare that a person delights in causing conflict, so don’t jump too quickly to the conclusion that a person who objects is just a trouble-maker. When conflict erupts, it is often because the decision involves issues that are very important to someone.

The greatest potential for severe conflict is when there are long-term consequences linked to core values about which people are passionate. The more irreversible the decision, the higher the stakes and the more strongly people who object will object. You won’t be able to resolve the conflict until you understand what the opposers are passionate about.

Ask probing questions that will get at their underlying motivations and concerns:

• Please help me to understand why you think this is not a good idea
• Can you think of another acceptable way? What makes it acceptable?
• If we step back from this decision and consider the bigger picture, do we agree on what we are trying to achieve by this decision?

Often when there is disagreement on the means, you can find agreement on the goal, the principle or the overall concept. Back away from the concrete proposal and get agreement on the abstract aspects of the decision. Once you’ve done that, you can then set the criteria for a good decision and start working on specific proposals.

The goal is not to be conflict-free, but rather to use conflict productively. If there is not even any mild conflict (no constructive feedback and no alternate opinions), then the leader has likely created an unhealthy atmosphere, stifling what people are thinking (or perhaps has a team of unimaginative people).

The challenge for a leader is to overcome any negative personal reactions to conflict and dispassionately consider the issues that have been raised. The way some people object can be highly offensive, and that is a separate issue that must be addressed, but the first priority is to deal with the decision that is at hand and get it made. To do this in the face of opposition, a leader must focus on the content of the objection or alternative proposal, not the way it was delivered.

Seeking conflicting ideas

Thoughtful writers such as Kouzes and Posner (The Leadership Challenge), Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline), Jim Collins (Good To Great), and James MacGregor Burns (Leadership) have made the case that diversity (not just multiplicity) of persons improves the quality of decisions and raises the intelligence of the group beyond any individual intelligence. It really is true that “Two heads are better than one.”

Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory….Without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed.
Proverbs 11:14, 15:22;

Burns points out that leaders should not passively wait for conflicting ideas to be brought forward, but should actively seek them out.  Conflicting ideas and views help leaders see the truth about themselves and their organizations.  Senge writes that a commitment to the truth means “a relentless willingness to root out the ways we limit or deceive ourselves from seeing what is, and to continually challenge our theories of why things are the way they are.”  The resulting benefit is a more successful organization.

Leaders do not need a team of their own clones. The objective in building a team is not to find people who think exactly as the leader does because, if everyone thinks alike, then the team is not needed for decision making, only for work capacity to implement the decisions.

Research by Meredith Belbin (he’s written a number of books on the topic) shows that teams of similar people with similar traits can perform well if circumstances suit their strengths, but in the long-term they cannot deal as effectively with the full range of problems encountered as a mixed team can. The cost of having a team of people who are different from each other is conflict. Some team members will be out-of-the-box thinkers, others will be analysts. It is in inherent in the team’s make-up that they will have conflict. They need to learn how to work through it as much as their leader does.

Using conflict for good

Conflict being inevitable, the next issue is the choice a leader makes when conflict arises.  Whether or not a leader is willing to listen and act upon the advice of others is a test of the leader’s character.  Listening to advice and contrary opinions is not always a pleasant experience.  Leaders can prepare by identifying their ‘hot buttons’ so they can better control their emotions when their ‘buttons’ are pushed.  Without such preparation, leaders may take the conflict as a personal attack even when the other party has no such intentions.

It is essential, especially if the leader feels attacked, that leaders check their assumptions about the other person’s motives when voicing objections and alternatives. They can be driven by self-interest, personal dislike of the leader, a desire to explore all options or play the devil’s advocate, or concern for the mission and the welfare of the ministry. Regardless of their motivation though, they may still have a good idea. Ask some questions that will move you from an emotional to a logical response:

• What is your criteria for a good solution?
• What assumptions are you making?
• If we can satisfy the concerns you have raised, is there any other reason why you would not agree with this decision?

Leaders should also be aware that the conflict’s presenting issue may not be the real issue.  There could be a deeper issue and the leader will have to listen hard and probe carefully to uncover it.  For example, the conflict may appear to be about if a thing should be done, but the issue may really be about how it should be done.  The parties may share the same generic value (say, integrity) but define it differently.  So how something is done may offend one person’s definition of integrity yet be acceptable according to another person’s definition of integrity.  Burns noted that a leader must be sensitive not to the team’s generic values, but to the particular manner in which the values are manifested.

The issue then is how to work through conflict harmoniously to arrive at the best decision.

Leader as a team member

Rather than being over a team, which could cause some leaders to see a challenge as a win/lose proposition, it is helpful if the team leader considers himself or herself as a team member with a specialized role. Taking your place as a member of the team reduces the confrontational nature of conflict (“you vs. them”) and turns it into a collaborative problem-solving exercise (“We need to solve this”).

This does not mean that leaders should surrender leadership.  Christian leaders must pass along what God has revealed to them, but in Experiencing God, the Blackabys say leaders should not have to “sell the vision or twist arms to get it accepted” if it is of God because the Holy Spirit will confirm it one way or another.  In Spiritual Leadership, Sanders says the leader introduces the vision, but team members (who may see things differently) can refine how it is understood and improve its implementation while maintaining the integrity of what God revealed to the leader.  Rather than selling the vision, leaders need to teach it and keep it visible.  A clearly defined mission and a regular reaffirmation of the ministry’s core values and messaging (brand promises, tagline, etc.) are key to the team’s success.

A practical way to handle conflict

Conflict will most easily be overcome when everyone in the group is committed to the principle that what is right is more important than who is right. Leaders need to elicit good ideas from everyone. It does not matter who comes up with the right idea, just that someone does. So leaders should work hard to build team support for judging ideas on the strength of the idea and not the person who raised it.

Live in harmony with one another.
Romans 12:16

I thought so highly of The Best Question Ever by Andy Stanley that I bought a copy for each staff member, each of my children and my wife. There’s an endorsement! Stanley claims the best question ever (no – it’s not WWJD?) would have prevented your greatest regret and that it will foolproof your life. At about 45,000 words, it is a relatively small book and for that reason, if I tell you the question I’ve given away the guts of the book – and that’s not fair to Stanley or his royalties, so let me just tell you why, at less than $10 per book, you should want to give this book away by the caseload to those you love and care for as I did.

• One simple question will address every decision you’ll ever need to make — it’s not just about morality and ethics, but applies to business decisions, personal decisions and any other decision you must make
• You already know the answer when you ask the question, so it’s not hard to answer
• The question will shine a blazing spotlight on any self-deception you’ve created
• The question is no gimmick — it really is a thoughtful question
• Everyone can benefit by using the question, but the question is especially helpful as a check and balance for anyone in ministry who holds decision-making authority

Stanley finishes the book with a number of great observations about our use of time, two of which are:

• the sobering one: There is no cumulative value to the urgent (or even trivial) things that we allow to interfere with the important things, and
• the encouraging one: There is a cumulative value to investing small amounts of time in certain activities over a long period.

So, for instance, whatever I frittered my time away doing instead of say, exercising or studying or being present with my family, has no value. You probably can’t even really remember what you did instead of the more worthy things. However, reading a book a month on a topic will make you an expert in that topic in a relatively short time. The Best Question Ever is not about time management, but it is about the many decisions, big and small, that we make each day.

I saw this book on my bookshelf last week and pulled it off to read while flying to BC. I benefitted from it just as much as I did the first time I read it several years ago. If you want to live a significant life, however you define that, this simple question will keep you on track.

Read it.

Many people recommend that seekers read the Gospel of John and I’ve never figured out why. It is the most mystical and complex gospel of the four. Although I greatly benefit from reading it, I always suggest Luke as an introduction to Jesus. It’s filled with human interest stories that anyone can relate to.

But which version should a seeker read? I recently received an evaluation copy of The Voice New Testament — newly revised and updated. The complete Bible will be released in April 2012. This version was created specifically to help people “step into the story of scripture.” I have read eight books in The Voice to sample the different biblical writers and genres. There is much to commend it, although I did find some things that cause me concern, enough that I can recommend it for specialized use only. I think as a first introduction to Jesus it will work well. It is engagingly written and people will likely read a gospel right through. It is also a good resource for believers who want a “we were there” reading experience.

The publishers

Probably the biggest surprise about The Voice is that it is the project of a single church. Ecclesia Bible Society is a ministry of Ecclesia Church in Houston. The idea for the book was born out of the ministry needs of the church, and the church partnered with Thomas Nelson to bring the project to fruition. I would feel more comfortable had the effort been a more broad-based project, but the book needs to be reviewed based on its own merits, not that of its origins.

The scholars and contributing writers

Twenty-seven scholars worked on the translation. There are another 53 contributing writers; a combination of artists, musicians, and writers.

I must say that with so many biblical scholars involved, I was surprised at the following statement in a note to Luke 1:

“Luke is especially skilled as a storyteller, so he isn’t presenting a theological treatise (as good and important as theological treatises may be); he’s telling the story of Jesus.”

Ever since I. Howard Marshall’s groundbreaking 1971 book  Luke: Historian & Theologian, Lukan scholars have recognized Luke’s theological agenda as the foundation on which the gospel was written. (Darrel Bock, one of the 27 scholars, apparently is among them since his new book coming out next month is entitled A Theology of Luke & Acts.) In fact, New Testament scholarship today accepts each gospel writer as a theologian. Why then was this gospel, and none of the others, singled out for such a note? Yes, Luke is a masterful storyteller, but he is also a first-rate theologian. It makes me wonder how much of a particular theological bent is being inserted into the edition.

The goal of the translation

A translation can be reviewed on two levels:

1. How well does it convey the accepted meaning of the original documents? and
2. How well does it achieve its own stated goals?

The stated goal for this translation is “to help believers experience the joy and wonder of God’s revelation,” but there is a secondary goal — to introduce people to Jesus. As the president of the Ecclesia Bible Society writes: “This is the story of God’s relentless pursuit of us…You will hear God as He whispers of His love to you.”

 Unique features

This New Testament has quite a few innovations in it that make it come alive in a fresh way:

• It describes its translation method as ‘contextual equivalence.’ The editorial team followed a standard translation process and then edited the work into a readable literary structure using contemporary language.
• The Voice retains the author’s meaning while using modern, rather than ancient, literary conventions. For instance, if Paul writes “Brothers…”, he did not mean only men needed to heed his instruction, so that phrase is translated gender-neutral. However, other passages clearly refer to only men or women, and gender-based language is retained. These contextualizations are well done and help modern readers get to the real points being made by the biblical authors.
• There are words such as baptism and Christ that are actually not English words, but transliterations of Greek words. The Voice translates these words just as all the other words are translated. Thus Jesus Christ becomes Jesus, the Anointed. While it takes getting used to, these translations are helpful. Even though I know what Christ means, The Voice forces me to not gloss over its meaning.
• All narratives are told in the present tense using a screenplay format. I think this is probably the best feature of the book. It makes it very exciting to read, and it puts the reader right into the action.
• Scenes are introduced by a phrase such as “Imagine this…” or ”Picture this…”
• Instead of saying “Jesus said…Peter replied…John said”, the text looks like a script
  Jesus:
  Peter:
  John:
  Not only is it clear at a glance who said what, but it takes fewer words to record the conversation and the reader can focus on the flow of the conversation. There is a greater immediacy and vividness with the screenplay format than there is with the usual narrative style
• Closely related to the screenplay layout for speaking parts are the lists. They allow people to read faster and highlight what is being said. An example is Luke 9:3-5:
• These were His instructions:
1. Travel light…
2. When you enter a house, stay there…
3. If a town rejects you…
• Material that would normally be found in footnotes is included right in the text, but clearly distinguished by position and colour from the actual biblical text. This makes for a very smooth reading experience (you don’t have to find the note and then find your place again). There are some things that a first-time Bible reader might find very confusing and this way they get the explanation at the same time they have the thought.
• In Mark 3:1-6 Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on a Sabbath in front of the Pharisees. The biblical text says Jesus asked them what the Law says about doing good or evil on the Sabbath and that he was grieved by their hard hearts. In a separate paragraph in a different colour, The Voice editorializes, “How can anyone care so much about the words of the Law and so little about the spirit of it?” The addition drives home the point of the story, which may not be obvious to a new reader.
• More extensive notes are also in a different colour, but are separated from the text by solid lines. Mark 3:31-35 is the story of how Jesus’ family comes to get him but can’t get into the crowded house. Jesus gives a short teaching that his true family is whoever does the will of God. Just before this passage, there is a note that explains why family and friends would become more concerned as Jesus’ ministry and fame grows. They are concerned for Jesus’ welfare and that Jesus will attract unwanted attention from the occupying Roman forces that can only end badly for him.
• Some words are added to the text in italic type to provide nuance to the text or to complete the idea of the original text. These additions put the modern reader on par with the ancient readers, who would have understood the nuances and thoughts.
• Luke 11:34 has an addition in italics that helps explain the meaning of the verse.
• The NASB reads: “The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.”
• The Voice’s translation is: “Listen, your eye, your outlook, the way you see is your lamp. If your way of seeing is functioning well, then your whole life will be enlightened. But if your way of seeing is darkened, then your life will be a dark, dark place.” Although The Voice translates soma as “outlook” and “whole life” when it actually means “body”, I think there is justification for this translation. The plural of soma means “corporate life” and even though this is not a meaning for the singular in Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon, it is a reasonable use based on the context and the meaning of the plural.
• Acts 2:45 has a more debatable insertion. The NIV is almost a word-for-word translation of the Greek and it reads: “They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.” The only improvement on this is a Greek word in the sentence that means “to the extent.” So it could read ”They sold property and possessions to give to the extent that anyone had a need.” However, The Voice translates the verse as: “They sold any possessions and goods that did not benefit the community and used the money to help everyone in need.” This seems an unwarranted limitation on the sacrificial generosity of the believers. The Greek does not say anything about whether or not the assets sold benefitted the community in their present form. The Voice’s version may be a reasonable assumption, but it should be a note rather than italics in the text.
• By involving artists, poets and writers in the project, the publishers have tried to recapture “the passion, grit, humor and beauty” of the original language and culture.
• A great example of recapturing the passion and the sarcastic humour of the original text is 1 Corinthians 15:55. The familiar reading is “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”. The Voice says “Hey, Death! What happened to your big win? Hey, Death! What happened to your sting?” I loved this ‘in-your-face’ triumphal cry of the redeemed.
• One example where there is a surprisingly bland translation that misses the thought of the original text is Romans 8:37. The NASB translates it as “But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us,” accurately conveying the superlative nature of the conquest. The Voice has a rather anemic choice of words that gives no hint of the extent of the conquest: “But no matter what comes, we will always taste victory through Him who loved us.” Now, let me say there is victory, and then there is VICTORY! The Greek verb is hypernikao, which is a heightened form of the verb nikao. Nikao means to prevail, conquer, overcome or be victorious. Hypernikao means to prevail completely. It was used by secular authors writing in biblical times to mean “we are winning a most glorious victory” and “victory and more than victory.” To translate this word as mildly as “to taste victory” is to miss the overwhelming, comprehensive nature of our victory in Christ. It lacks the emotional intensity of the Greek.

Conclusions

Let me answer the two questions posed above.

How well does The Voice convey the accepted meaning of the original documents?

After reading eight books, I thought it was a fresh and very meaningful translation that I would use for reflective and meditative reading rather than for study. Christians who already know the Bible well will find it ideal for this purpose.

The reason I would not use it as a study Bible or for regular Bible reading is due to the number of times I read a verse and thought “Does it really say that?” An example is Luke 11:3, which the NIV and NASB translated exactly the same, “Give us each day our daily bread.” The NKJV says, “Give us day by day our daily bread.” Ten other versions all say either daily, day-by-day, or each day. These are all correct translations of the Greek word kata which means, in this context, x period by x period (eg., year by year, month by month, day by day). Yet The Voice translates it as “Give us the food we need for tomorrow.” The Greek word for tomorrow is aurion, which is not in this verse. It appears the translators are using kata in one of its other meanings, which is as a marker for a definite time (at, on, or during a specific time) while everyone else translates it in its distributive meaning (over time). The translation team included experts in biblical Greek, so I’m sure they had their reasons, but they are not explained in a footnote. I’m no Greek scholar (although I took two years of Greek at seminary so I know the basics), but it seems the editors have taken a ground-breaking position on translating this verse that subtly changes the focus from our needs today to our needs tomorrow. When it comes to caring for ourselves, scripture tends to say “Pray for what you need right now, not what you will need tomorrow” (eg., Mat 6:34). Is this a significant issue? I’m not sure. Praying for our food to be provided day-by-day is also praying for the future, so maybe it’s nothing to get worked up over. It’s just that there were a few places where I had the same question about why they had an unusual interpretation. That is why I suggest this version not be used as a study Bible.

How well does it achieve its own stated goals?

The Voice has to be rated an ‘A’ for achieving the publishers’ goals. Will believers “experience the joy and wonder of God’s revelation?” Absolutely! It’s like his revelation is unfolding in your presence.  Will seekers find a good introduction to Jesus? Absolutely! He comes alive in this version.

Reading the gospels was a delight. I can’t overstate the significance of putting the narrative in the present tense. This is a powerful technique that bridges two thousand years to draw us closer to Jesus. Combine that technique with the in-line explanatory notes, and the reader will see Jesus in a fresh way that will invigorate the spiritual life of both experienced believers and neophyte seekers. The love of God permeates this version – the notes constantly remind the reader that God’s love is behind every verse.

I recommend The Voice to believers as a Bible that will make scripture fresh and draw them right into the action. It will be good for lectio divina and meditation.  But they still need a study Bible such as the NASB and perhaps a Bible for daily reading such as the NIV (although I’m fine with the NASB for that purpose too).

I also recommend The Voice to seekers as an introduction to Jesus and the Christian faith. They will find it an easy and enjoyable read that piques their desire to seek God. Just be sure to let them know that words in italics are explanatory and not in the original text. I doubt they will read the Preface where that is explained.

“Book has been provided courtesy of Graf-Martin Communications, Inc. Available now at your favourite bookseller.”