The CBE Scroll

There is an excellent article on godswordtowomen.org called, “Empirical Data in Support of Egalitarian Marriages and A Fresh Perspective on Submission and Authority,” that reviews many scientific studies that all say that marriages that operate on the basis of equality are much more healthy than those that are hierarchical — in fact that hierarchical approaches actually harm marriages.

The research reviewed include studies by the following professionals who work within the fields of marriage and family therapy, sociology, and demography:

• A 2001 Barna Research Group survey of Christian denominations.
• Dr. Howard Clinebell, Professor Emeritus of Pastoral Psychology and Counseling, Claremont School of Theology
• Drs. Alan Booth and Paul Amato, Penn State sociologists and demographers
• Dr. David H. Olson, Professor Emeritus, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota
• Drs. David H. Olson and Shuji G. Asai of the University of Minnesota
• Dr. Diana R. Garland, Professor and Chair of the School of Social Work and Director of the Center for Family and Community Ministries at Baylor University
• Drs. Pepper Schwartz and Philip Blumstein, University of Washington sociologists

In his summary of these studies’ findings, Rev. Preato says the following:

Over the last 50 years these studies reveal that significant numbers of egalitarian marriages are happy in comparison to traditional hierarchical marriages. A recent study quantified these results revealing that over 80% of egalitarian marriages are happy while less than 20% of traditional marriages can say the same. That represents over a 4:1 ratio in favor of egalitarian marriages. Spousal abuse continues to be more than 300 percent higher in traditional marriages than in egalitarian marriages.

These research studies accomplish the following: First, they effectively discredit any traditionalists’ notion that dismantling hierarchy destabilizes marriage and that the root problem in marriage is the unwillingness of each spouse to accept the role for which he or she was designed. Second, they prove that hierarchy actually destabilizes and harms marriages. Third, they provide objective data that egalitarian marriages produce the healthiest, happiest, most intimate, and stable of all marriage relationships with the least amount of spousal abuse.

The point being made here is not that CBE is out for more “women’s rights” or is trying to upset the “traditional” ways of church and home. We are trying to save marriage and to help churches be more responsible, accurate and wise in the advice they give to husbands and wives. If this comes to pass, the impact of it will far surpass the fact that more women break through the glass ceiling in countless churches.

One of the problems with developing a concern (or anger!) over biblical equality is that it can hang over you like a cloud and drag you down in the dumps, make you feel moody, put other people out of sorts against you. How much more safe and sane to just attend your sweet little evangelical church, don’t make waves, and float in the old familiar music and words. But is that right? As Hope said so well on my blog [permission sought and granted]:

I feel frustrated for being grieved about this too. I keep waiting for it to pass. I think, I’ll get over it, forgive and forget. It won’t bug me, etc.. hasn’t happened yet in the last 2 years. If anything, it’s intensified. I heard Hybels of Willow Creek talk on a topic called ‘holy discontent’. He said, if there is some issue out there that you can’t lose, there is probably a reason. It’s your ‘holy discontent’. God wants you to use it to do something. Don’t let it embitter you, use it for his glory. So, I rest in that. Perhaps it’s not so awful that the issue is staying with me. Perhaps it will make me more sensitive to people who are oppressed, judged, stereotyped. Perhaps, it will make me a better Christian.

Jon Trott has a recent posting of his struggle with anger in a post called Cornerstone Festival and Christians for Biblical Equality and he says it quite well:

In my own case, my anger seems more often to end in something destructive, esp. when I think I’m right about something. But after listening to Sarah, and then during Q and A offering what I (and not Julia, so she doesn’t get in trouble) called “the evangelical enablement of a rape culture,” I was left thinking about anger’s positive aspects. As one friend (a woman pastor, appropriately!) told me later after listening to my reflections, William Barclay writes regarding Jesus’ words on anger in the Sermon on the Mount that (her words), “When we are angry on behalf of someone else, there’s a much better chance that anger is constructive, godly anger, than when we’re angry on behalf of ourselves.” Yes, something like that.

How hard it is to think of others. But if we do, we not only satisfy Jesus’ command to love our neighbor, but we also better channel our anger. God might even change it to joy because we’ll be in the center of His will along with our holy discontent.

Often the gender debate focuses narrowly on leadership and marriage, at the expense of many. But leadership and marriage are two of the highest ideals in Christian culture, right? Why would this debate be at anyone’s expense? As we live as Christians, what is the normative metaphor for relationships between men and women?

Growing up in the church and then attending a Christian college taught me that marriage is a Christian “virtue.” The vast majority of my peers desired to be married and would date according to the various trends for Christian dating. In order to ensure that this virtue be at the center of their futures, my friends “courted,” they “kissed dating goodbye,” they practiced “righteous dating,” they dated with “agape love” (and no “eros”), they “dated with a purpose” or “with passion and purity” and of course never “dated just to date.” Friendship was always a springboard to something more. Friendship between women and men was not satisfactory, and often true friendship ceased once the woman or man found the *significant other* they longed for so deeply.

The church certainly encourages marriage; most Christian singles ministries are designed for match-making, so that singles can begin to experience the joy of Christian marriage. Ministry becomes a dating service. Still other churches neglect or don’t know how to approach singles ministries. I recently heard about a church in my area that needed someone to oversee the singles ministry, but no one wanted to take it up even though 40% of all adults in their congregation were single (which is true for the general population of this country as well)! Consider that these singles are probably the most mobile and available “workers” in the church, with the biggest ministry potential. Singles are the ones that can donate more of their time and money to church ministries. How long can this continue to be neglected? Paul was aware of such wisdom as well:

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

Here’s another statistic you might not expect: about 25% of Americans never marry or cohabitate! And I found this next one particularly astonishing:

Duration of a marriage is linked to the woman’s age at her first marriage; the older a woman is at the first marriage, the longer that marriage is likely to last. For example, 59 percent of marriages of brides under 18 end in separation or divorce within 15 years, compared with 36 percent of those married at age 20 or older.

More interesting and possibly surprising statistics along these lines can be found here: http://www.gendercenter.org/mdr.htm (although the data is from the 1990s).

Marriage is indeed important, and my point here isn’t to trivialize it. I’m not condemning Christian marriage any more than Paul is, who continues in v. 35: I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. Paul knew something that our singles ministries often miss, that Christian singleness is more than a waiting period for marriage.

But is marriage the biblical ideal for *all* gender relationships among Christians? Should marriage be our highest aim? Paul seems to be saying that the ideal is to be fully devoted to the Lord, and somehow marriage “divides” devotion. The Bible teaches us about the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives, but this topic is limited compared to all the other texts on how to treat one another as fellow Christians. The Bible uses familial metaphors: we are God’s “children,” God is our “Father,” Jesus is the “Son,” etc. Therefore, I think that the metaphor that best describes Christian relationships is indeed a familial metaphor, but the spouse isn’t the source (or ideal) for that metaphor.

It is important to know what a Christian marriage should look like, and CBE is clear that mutuality is the governing principle as taught by Eph. 5:21. But for other relationships in the church, Christians should treat one another as siblings in Christ—caring for each other’s needs and loving them because they are bound by adoption to a common family. Such a metaphor is less exclusive because there is no prerequisite or exclusion, as there is with marriage. Therefore, the metaphor for understanding gender relationships, and indeed all relationships for Christians should be that of “sibling.” And there is no place for inequality among siblings before our Creator.

The Evangelical Christian Publishing Association (ECPA) has announced this year’s finalists for their Christian Book Awards. Normally, I do not pay attention to these types of awards, because I like to judge a book for myself rather than take somebody else’s word for it whether the book is good or not. However, a couple of entries under the category of “Best Bible” disturb me. They are The Holman CSB Minister’s Bible and The ESV Reformation Study Bible. Let me explain why it bothers me that either of these would be considered the best Bible that Christians can study.

To begin with, both the CSB and the ESV were created as a protest to the TNIV. How do we know this? Well, let’s take a look at the CSB first. It is published by Broadman & Holman, who are the publishers for the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist denomination. David R. Shepherd, Vice-President:

Some recent translations have reinterpreted the Bible to make it consistent with current trends and their own way of thinking…. Current trends in Bible translation have been a real wake-up call for everybody who’s concerned about preserving the integrity of Scripture. The CSB will be under the stewardship of Christians who believe we should conform our lives and culture to the Bible – not the other way around.

So what were the “recent translations” and “current trends” that the translators of the CSB were worried about? Well, according to Michael Marlowe:

The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) was conceived as a replacement for the NIV, which the SBC Sunday School Board had been using in its curriculum materials under a license agreement. The NIV became controversial after the International Bible Society acknowledged in 1997 that it was revising the NIV with “politically correct” gender neutral language, and so in 1998 the Sunday School Board entered into an agreement with Arthur Farstad… to oversee the production of a new version that would be under its own control [see article above].

Now let’s take a look at the ESV. Again, according to Michael Marlowe:

The English Standard Version (ESV)… had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day’s strategy… The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version… recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.

Some months later…Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations…to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation.

In addition to Grudem, big name scholar J. I. Packer was also present at that meeting, the author of a February 1991 article in Christianity Today entitled “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters,” an article which CBE has refuted. The resulting Colorado Springs Guidelines listed concerns over using gender-neutral language in biblical translation, which Craig L. Blomberg has also answered. Others have criticized the Guidelines as well.

Given all this, then, the question must be asked, when you have a preconceived bias on a particular issue, is it possible to set aside that bias when it comes to translating the Bible, or will that bias carry into the translation? One of the tenets of the Guidelines is “We agree that Bible translation should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas.” So did the translators of the CSB and ESV set aside any ideological agendas they might have had?

Let’s look at an example: 2 Timothy 2:2. Both the CSB and the ESV render this verse as: And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. In the Greek, anthropos means “mankind, all people.” So why, then, is it rendered only as “men” in these two translations?

I cannot speak for the translators of the CSB. However, here is what Packer said in an interview about the ESV’s rendering of “men” in that verse:

Suzanne: I have to ask you about 2 Tim. 2:2. Did you think that anthropos referred to “men” in this verse?

Dr. Packer: I think it means “men” exegetically. We think that it means “men”…

Suzanne: I was brought up with that verse in our Christian Fellowship and I always thought that it was ‘men and women’. It was quite a shock to me to find that people would think that it was “men only.”

Dr. Packer: Well, Paul doesn’t say that it was “men only,” he just says “men,” but in the situation, it was to the teachers, surely it is obvious from the context that they were men.

This apparent bias appears in other passages, as well. In Romans 16:7, the ESV has Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. According to New Testament scholar Jay Eldon Epp, however, “among the apostles” is the correct translation. (See his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle) That’s a big difference! The CSB has “among the apostles.” This, and the fact that most other translations — including the NASV, KJV, NIV, and NRSV — have “among” makes the ESV stand out even more. To its credit, though, the CSB and ESV do translate the name “Junia” correctly as female. Most recent conservative translations, such as the NIV, have rendered it incorrectly as a male name. One does wonder, however, what the supporters of the CSB think about Paul’s naming a woman among the apostles.

When it comes to choosing a Bible, there are many fine choices. I myself like using more than one version. However, a person should always ask the basic question: how accurate is this translation? In that regard, I believe it is possible to say that not all Bibles are created equal.

Lori

I’m curious if someone on the blog could help. Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11 talk about the husband being the “head.” Fine. Great. But I’m curious about when (historically) people began using the nomenclature “spiritual leader.”

What is the root of that phrase? Did this crop up in the 1950′s? Or earlier or later? I know it was pre-Promise Keepers and Focus on the Family but I’m just curious how long that terminology has been around. Who brought it into prominence?

When people say, “The husband needs to be the spiritual leader of the home,” I always want to ask: What does that mean? Does that mean he makes sure his wife is doing her devotions? Does it mean he leads the family in prayer at meals? Does it mean he drives the car to church? I want to ask because the Bible doesn’t talk about any of that but it does talk about the husband being the “head.” I just thought it would be interesting to hear when that christianese “spiritual leader”
terminology began.

My guess is that it is simply a leap from “head of the home”
(misinterpreting to mean the same as “head of the company”) to “spiritual leader” of the home.

Most complementarian husbands who have good marriages say things like “I’m the spiritual leader but I have never had to pull rank or exert that authority. We actually make all of our decisions as a team.” Exactly.

A Google search of CBMW.org for “spiritual leader” finds it everywhere including:

We Need Some Leaders! by Bob Lepine

What Should Be the Husband’s Role in Marriage by Dennis Rainey

Here are three popular references on the internet:
It’s Not Too Late To Be The Spiritual Leader In Your Home by Angie Lewis

The Servant-Leader Husband by Steven Wickstrom

Manager of His Home

http://andyrowell.typepad.com/andy_rowell/leadership/index.html

Andy