The CBE Scroll

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