An Observation on the General Synod.

I was perusing the unofficial Acts of General Synod Smithers over breakfast, and ran across this little conundrum:

With regards to the Committee for Bible Translation (CBT), Synod decided:

• To continue to recommend the NIV for use within the churches but to leave it in the freedom of the churches should they feel compelled to use other translations that have received favourable reviews in the reports of the CBT, namely, the NKJV, the NASB or the ESV.

However, with the Book of Praise Committee, Synod decided:

• to adopt the proposed updated prose section of the Book of Praise with the NIV Bible
  references, along with the necessary changes as noted in the above considerations.

I am wondering how these two decisions work together. In the first place, the NIV is the recommended translation, under which the individual churches have the freedom to use one of the other favourable translations. However, the Book of Praise is going to be updated (finally) to have NIV quotes in the liturgical forms rather than RSV. Isn't this, in a way, forcing the NIV onto the churches? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the NIV, and I am fully in favour of updating the language of our liturgical forms, but if the NIV is recommended, and if the churches are free to use other translations, don't these two decisions work against each other?

I have no idea how this conundrum could be fixed, other than having publications of the BoP with each of the translations used in the prose sections, and so it is actually and truly up to each individual church to use their adopted translation (from within the guidelines, of course), and not have the NIV indirectly forced onto them through the BoP.

Maybe I should write a letter to classis or something...