The CBE Scroll

Comment by leigh

March 27, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

Excellent topic!

My first couple of churches were patriarchal, and I found it odd that people who were so concerned with the differences between men and women would use language that seemed confusing. How was I supposed to be able to tell when “men” meant “men,” and when it meant “all Christians” (or “all people,” of course, depending on the context)?

They seemed to stress simultaneously the importance of gender roles and the importance of the use of masculine pronouns (“Watch out for the TNIV–it’s dangerous!” was something I heard once. I kid you not). I wondered why they wouldn’t want to use language that made it more easy for me to tell what in the Bible applied to me–a woman–and what didn’t.

Comment by Betty Jo

March 27, 2008 @ 6:36 pm

Yes, I sometimes have trouble knowing when a text refers to only males or to men and women. I’m 56. I was raised with male language referring to both males and females, and not just at church. When I had teenagers in Sunday School a couple years ago, the girls didn’t always know if they were included or not from our NIV Bibles.

On the other hand, I’m as guilty of any. I realized that I referred to them as “you guys” even when the class was all girls. There was no malice intended or taken and no confusion – the term is common where we live. But, it is as confusing as the scripture versions that don’t use inclusive language.

By the way, I always thought that the Declaration of Independence did use the word men to include all people. But, that the early citizens of our nation were so misled by the culture and self-interest that they didn’t even see that they were sowing the seeds for emancipation of slaves and rights, such as sufferage, for women.

Comment by SSM

March 28, 2008 @ 3:50 am

Not being American, I assumed the above paragraph to apply to both men and women. It could be argued that half of it is inclusive (?) I think nowadays, language needs to be more specific if it is inclusive, even if at times it sounds long-winded or clumsy.
If you are brought up believing women are equally included, you would read men-only language as inclusive and sometimes this will be a wrong interpretation. I now question anything I read in men-only language, even if only to alert men of the issues.

Comment by Marie

March 28, 2008 @ 6:53 am

Here is a verse which felt to me like a slap in the face. The link goes to several modern versions in parallel “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved” 1 Tim 2:3-4 Do you see how that verse- as translated- appears to exclude women? Though I have been a born again, spirit filled, evangelical Christian for some 30 years now, in a season of personal trauma, a mid-life and marriage crisis, I began to seek the Lord and study the Bible much more deeply. I became very conscious, sensitive, and I confess- even OVERsensitive- to every assignment of gender as I read the Bible. I questioned every instance where the Bible uses the word “brothers”. What about “sisters”? Was God excluding us? I felt betrayed by translators and commentators who seemed so biased. I became distrustful of Bible translations.

GOD is ever so gracious and merciful toward me. HE showed me HIS character through various tender intimate moments and miracles which I believe were tailor made to show me that He loves me and is my protector. I realized that GOD and HIS Word as intended was not the problem. The problem was the translations- as I was hearing them- simply were not consistent with the character of the God I know. I began to use online Bible study tools to do Word Study for myself in the original Biblical languages.

And I began to realize that I am not alone. I am not the only one who has struggled with the way Bible translations come across.

Over the course of the past year or two, I became aware of what felt to me very much like a betrayal at a deep level regarding the TNIV Bible translation. I felt betrayed by Christian leaders whom I have trusted- including James Dobson and World Magazine. I was a subscriber to World magazine and I remember feeling relieved when Zondervan pulled the translation from publication in the US Market. I believed what they said; I trusted their reporting; I thought the church had been protected from blaspheming God by messing with His identity. When I read the article on the CBE website is when I realized I had believed a lie and I felt that sense of betrayal I mentioned above: Today’s New International Version: The Untold Story of a Good Translation by Craig L. Blomberg Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary. When I read the article is the first time I became aware of Dr. Dobson’s involvement in Bible Banning the TNIV. :(

I identify deeply with this account from the article of the negative impact upon women and girls of the archaic use of the masculines in modern Bible translations. Blomberg writes:

I also wish to close with a plea. Though I am sure it is not anyone’s intention, the critics of the TNIV are making it harder for me to bring up my girls in the Christian faith and to be a faithful witness for Christ in a postmodern culture.81 For one thing, many people see Christians once again squabbling about something they should not be and are repulsed.82 Even more seriously, it is becoming harder to differentiate complementarianism (which I endorse) from the anti-inclusive language movement, because so many leaders of the former are joining the latter. For the majority of folks who do not understand the fine differences, it is becoming too easy simply to reject complementarianism altogether, assuming that the hostile polemic against translations like the TNIV is a necessary consequence of that position.

This was brought home to me dramatically, shortly after the NIVI came out, when we had an evangelistic service at our church that included a performance by our children’s choir. At that time my older daughter was ten years old and sang in the choir. She invited an unsaved girlfriend of hers to come, and the girl seemed to enjoy the concert and follow our (now retired) Children’s Ministry Director as she concluded the service with a very tasteful appeal to trust Christ. In so doing, however, she quoted 2 Cor. 5:17 out of the KJV (the translation she had used almost all her life): “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.” At that point, my daughter’s friend, who was sitting between my wife and me, leaned over to my wife and asked with disgust, “Does your church always use language like that?” Of course, we could have explained that the term was generic,83 that even in the NIV which we normally used, “man” and “he” were not present, but the moment of spiritual openness was gone. She knew, from public school upbringing and from common parlance, that such language was neither common nor necessary, and therefore smacked of chauvinism. The woman who read the Scripture I’m sure had no clue what happened and I knew of no effective way to bring up the topic with her, because of her attitude over the years on this issue.

The incident is not an isolated one. This summer, in Ireland, after a presentation at a local church on the gender roles debate, I had a man who must have been at least in his thirties come up and object to my very “moderate” complementarian approach by pointing out how common masculine language was throughout Scripture, following the NIV, and that it seemed large parts of it were addressed only to men. In Colorado, as a guest teacher in an adult Sunday School at a nearby evangelical church, a woman who must have been in her fifties but was a new convert, asked me why the Proverbs were almost exclusively about and addressed to men. In another church, a long-time Christian challenged me when I suggested that there were some leadership roles appropriate for women in the church, by quoting Heb. 13:17 from the NIV: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” I pointed out to him that there was no word for “men” in the Greek, only a generic masculine participle. He was surprised and agreed to reconsider his position. My girls, now fifteen and eleven, understand the gender-inclusive debate (in more detail than they care to given their father’s work on this paper!) and can recognize gender-inclusive masculines in the NIV (or NASB which is our current pastor’s version of choice), but it continues to sound both odd and exclusive to them whenever they hear it, because that is not how either their friends or their teachers talk.

Comment by Tia Lynn

March 28, 2008 @ 8:20 am

Hey, I linked to a post on gender equality over at my blog and asked some complementarians to exbound. I would love if some egalitarians would pop over and participate! :)

Comment by A.Lin

March 28, 2008 @ 8:55 am

I got clued into the biases of masculine-only language when I started my undergraduate degree. I realized that when I heard a word like congressman or policeman, I was visualizing a man–even though I knew that it could refer to a woman. It has been almost 15 years since then. I have been intentional about using gender-inclusive language since that time. Now, I use it in front of my children, in all the papers I write, etc. My TNIV bible has also opened my eyes to the beauty of a world where we can be intentional about including both genders. I think that writers and speakers who do not take the time to consider using gender-inclusive language run the risk of being misunderstood and ignored by many people.

Comment by jlp

March 29, 2008 @ 8:24 am

At the time the phrase “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” only applied to white male property owners over the age of 21. Women, non-whites and white males without property were not of the same status as white male property owners. This statement was not intended to give everyone the right to be involved in their government, only men who fit into that category. When we read into it today’s belief that everyone has a right to be involved in the decisions of their government, we are seeing an idea in it that didn’t exist at that time.

Comment by jlp

March 29, 2008 @ 8:30 am

One has to realize that although America was founded on the idea of freedom, it was not founded on the idea of freedom for everyone. That idea would take a couple of centuries, a civil war and countless activist movements to develop.

When the writers of the constitution said all men were created equal it really meant “Only men, and then only certain men, were created equal.”

Comment by Francine

March 29, 2008 @ 11:44 am

I was actually raised on KJV (am now using other translations including the TNIV & NIV) and didn’t realized the when the Bible said men or man it sometime meant human. No wonder some women has trouble relating to the gospel. Yes, God loves us, also, but does he enough to use us for his service? I( as many women) thought that God actually prefers the men. At least until I started studying the women in the Bible. About the same time we got a computer; then a Bible program. I could click on a word and see the meaning. Sometimes, I still have to check it out. Example: II Timothy 3:17 states “So that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The word for man is anthropos and is the word normally used for human( both man and woman). And here I always thought that only the men were allowed to teach, rebuke, correct and train (vs 16).
Once I was reading a debate on the TNIV when the question came up about inclusive language. One of the debaters against the TNIV said that if the women wanted to know which word it was being used for man could look it up. How many will do that? I was thinking when I was reading the debate that there was a lot of male pride in the statement.

Comment by PamBG

March 30, 2008 @ 12:25 pm

I think that language changes. Back when I was a child and a teenager, ‘mankind’ meant ‘humanity’ and, in the right context, ‘man’ meant ‘the human race’. Yes, I did understand that these words included me.

But language usage has changed and I now use the terms ‘humanity’, ‘human beings’ and – less frequently – ‘humankind’ when I preach.

For me, the issue of speaking about humanity as ‘mankind’ was subtle rather than a problem of understanding. I think it was a verbal reflection of the widespread idea that ‘real 100% adult people’ were male. When I was a teenager, adult women ranked somewhere between ‘real 100% adult male people’ and children; a sort of half-way house between childhood and adulthood. It was a verbal expression of the underlying social preference for maleness and the language also helped to reinforce that social preference.

Comment by jlp

March 30, 2008 @ 9:30 pm

The problem with the generic term “man” or “men” representing “humanity” is to know when it refers just to males, or to all of humanity. That’s why it doesn’t work for me.

Comment by Liz

March 31, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

JLP (83361) This always reminds me of ‘Animal Farm’ where “all (men) are equal but some are more equal than others”

It doesn’t make sense but that is how it works in any hierarchy.

Comment by Sue

April 1, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

It is true that sometimes the generic male references make me uncomfortable because I am not sure whether females are included in those instances and also because when reading generic male references, I psychologically feel unincluded. However, another reason why I prefer gender inclusive language is because I have read articles by those who espouse patriarchy who say the generic male references should be used in deference to male headship over women. They believe gender inclusive language makes women appear to be equal to men, and it defies male headship.

Comment by jlp

April 1, 2008 @ 2:22 pm

Hey at least they are being honest that they don’t believe women are equal to men. Some gender hierarchalists say they believe women are equal to men, and then treat them as if they are inferior. If someone is going to treat me as inferior, I would rather they just tell they think I’m inferior, instead of telling me I’m equal and then treating me as inferior.

Comment by sarah

April 1, 2008 @ 5:38 pm

Liz…one of my favorite quotes of all time :-)

Stray thought…English is more flexible in some ways than other languages. I’m dredging up my high school Spanish…remembering the masculine/feminine rules (my hand is feminine, my car is masculine, etc.). I was also taught that a group of females is feminine; however, the presence of one male in the group renders it masculine. I wonder how the issue of inclusive language is perceived and dealt with in situations where such linguistic rules are in force?

Comment by jlp

April 2, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

I appreciate everyone’s comments. Each one has blessed me and many new insights have been shared.

Comment by Sue Mattingly

April 3, 2008 @ 8:22 pm

Over the years, before more accurate translations, I marked up my Bible (and at least one Baptist Hymnal)to reflect what I knew to be the truth. Where I knew I, as a female, was included I wrote in the proper pronouns and words. It was very therapeutic!

Example: I Tim. 2:3-4 “God, our Savior, wants all men to be saved” was easily corrected by drawing a line through the word men.

Comment by Nancy

April 3, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

Interesting discussion. My undergraduate degree was in communications (PR emphasis) and I remember being instructed that the grammatically correct way to refer to groups of people was with masculine pronouns (in the 80s).

Now, in my final steps towards ordination, I am very sensitive to use of language that excludes others… which is the case when gender inclusive language is not used. It seems as though gender inclusive language is now common enough in our culture that when preachers (& other leaders) use gender exclusive language in the church they are incredibly insensitive or they are deliberately making a point about the “proper” way of thinking.

I am wondering what you all think of gender inclusive language in relation to the Trinity. Do the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” come across as exclusive? What has been your experience with this?

Comment by cokhavim

April 4, 2008 @ 5:46 am

Sarah (83539), I struggle with this a lot living in a country where at least 2 androcentric (male-centred) languages are spoken. When they speak in English and I correct them about gender-exclusivity they feel one or both of two things: that North Americans are so nitpicky feminist (because they realise it’s the culture that shapes the language), or they feel embarrassed that their own language is so chauvinist.

In fact, not only are adjectives and pronouns gendered, in one of these languages, even verbs are distinguished between feminine and masculine. So for example, you’d say “I eat” or “I walk” differently depending if you’re a man or a woman. This makes it very difficult for me to sing worship songs in this language, where every song defaults to the masculine verbs, adjectives and pronouns (eg. “I worship”, “make me holy”, “I want more of you” are all written as if spoken by a male).

But what’s even worse for me, is the Bible itself. Sure you can make translations that are gender inclusive, but you’ll never be able to produce a gender-inclusive original. I read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew and Greek. I rarely use any other language. (And by the way, I encourage all of you to do this too. It’s not hard at all. If I can do it as a lay person and no biblical scholar, then all of you can too. Check out http://www.biblicalulpan.org.) And both of these languages (Hebrew more than Greek) are very androcentric. It really bothers me that things like the priestly blessing, the ten commandments, the worshipful psalms, are all spoken by males and to males. In other words, the original bible really does sound like the KJV, and is in fact even worse than the KJV when it comes to gender. My attitude about this has eventually become “if God can speak through Hebrew, then God can speak through me!”

As a passionate egalitarian, I’m all for gender-inclusive language in life and worship. But when it comes to the bible, though I’m not against a translation like the TNIV, I feel that proponents of the TNIV sweep a very real difficulty under the rug, and discourage people from wrestling with the original languages, the cultures that shaped them, and the God that spoke through them.

Comment by Watcher

April 4, 2008 @ 9:31 am

I’m responding to post # 83633

I have little to no understanding of Greek or Hebrew. When I do word studies I use a Bible and a Strong’s Analytical Concordance.

When it’s an egalitarian study, I specifically use a KJV and look up the meaning of the word used in there.

Recently, on a whim, I was studying the passage where the heaven opens up and The Father spoke. He said, “This is my Son whom I love. With Him I am well pleased.”

I just wanted to see what the Greek word for son was.

And it wasn’t an egalitarian study. It was me trying to get a deeper understanding of the endearment of this passage from God the Father to God the Son.

I was very surprised to see that the Greek word, according to this concordance, had nothing to do with maleness. It was a generic term referring to relation, possibly distant, probably offspring and was even applied to animals and they used the example of a colt or foal or something. The endearing terms were in the rest of what God said, “Whom I love” and “Well pleased.”

The word “son” itself carried no closeness or masculinity.

So I’m wondering about what you have read. Because according to my concordance son could have just as easily been translated “off spring.”

We do have Greek scholars on here and I hope they chime in on this because I could very well be missing something and don’t mind learning more on this topic.

P.S. I would have referred to you by name, but upon looking at it, I was wondering if it is a serious one or not. Sorry if it is a true and honest one, but we get a lot of spam and bad jokes that the moderators must filter out due to the nature of this site. And sometimes things still get by.

Comment by fjs

April 4, 2008 @ 9:32 am

Wow, when I read the quote from our delcaration of Independence, I cringed. I have had trouble with masculine language that is supposed to include me. I think it is another way women are marginalized in society. She is sort of enmeshed in the man and has no self of her own.

Comment by Watcher

April 4, 2008 @ 10:14 am

Sorry, made a mistake.
I don’t have a Strong’s Analytical.
Not sure such an animal exists.
I have a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, so old and well-used, it’s held together with duct-tape.
I’ve heard tell of a Young’s Analytical Concordance but never used one.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

April 4, 2008 @ 11:02 am

I am a very recent convert to “inclusive language” in the Bible. How new? Today. April 4, 2008. I have Francine (above) to thank for that. I had not checked anthropos. I am quite aware that Greek studies by non-Greek scholars are necessary but should be within the knowledge that when, for example, I do a Greek word study (or a Hebrew word study), it is being done by a non-expert.

What I found out in my brief study was that D.A. Carson, my all-time favorite Greek scholar, argues for “inclusive language.” That settles the Greek issue for me (though I have checked with another scholar who disagreed and didn’t find his arguments conclusive). May I also suggest a book by D.A. Carson? Exegetical Fallacies is an amazing and humbling experience. I’d suggest it to anyone, clergy and lay people alike, who try to understand the Greek. It does not tell you to give it up. It tells you what mistakes to look for in your own research and in the research and statements of others.

I was raised as a Fundamentalist with definite ideas about men never teaching women and only men in the pulpit and using the KJV as my text. Yet, interestingly, I was also taught (by my father who was our minister) that unless otherwise stated, “man,” “mankind,” etc. referred to all humanity.

It is my belief (as it was his) that there is one gender-specific term that must remain gender-specific. “Son(s).” This word, when used to refer to believers, means that we do indeed become the legal sons of God at adoption. Through most of human history, only male children could inherit. In the time of the writing of the Bible, only male children could inherit. By the use of “son(s)” the NT makes it clear that women are not the property-children of our Father, but His full heirs. All believers stand before God as fully equal children. Through most of history, this needed to be stressed. It still does.

Comment by jlp

April 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm

Perhaps Bibles should have a comment on that fact that only “sons” could inherit, and that all believers (even females) were characterized as sons for this reason. With this type of commentary people could understand the reason the New Testament writers choose the term “son” in an inclusive sense.

Comment by leigh

April 4, 2008 @ 4:34 pm

Hmmm. Interesting. When I learned that what was meant by “sons” (within context, of course) was “heirs”, I just started thinking “heirs” where that was appropriate.

And I remember the great relief I felt about the “Sonship” class that was being offered at my church, at the time. “Sons” meaning “heirs” was one more thing that let me know I didn’t have to aspire to be male (I know that sounds odd, but if God trusts and values men more than he trusts and values women, and if God wants us all to be “sons”…).

If and when “heirs” is the point being communicated, I don’t understand the need for keeping the word “sons”. The part about “sons” having been the original word, and why, could be footnoted, I think.

Also, I may be wrong, but I think as the English language moves further and further away from the time when “man” was used to mean one male or all males, or all people, the continued use of masculine language will increasingly be a stumbling block for seekers, when they begin to consider Christianity. They simply won’t be comfortable with–or maybe won’t even remember–the idea that the masculine nouns and pronouns are supposed to include women, too.

Comment by Liz

April 4, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

Sue (83625) – for many years I have automatically read any translation in gender inclusive words and when leading bible studies or preaching was able to read the passages fluently that way because that was what I ‘saw’. I hoped that by reading and sharing in that way, it was filtering through to others without their being aware of it or offended by it and so subtly change awareness – in the same way we were originally indoctrinated in the maleness of the scripture translations.

Another delight is to change the words of songs even if it sometimes means changing a line so it will rhyme. One example is “Rise up o men of God” which was changed to “Rise up people of God” which still holds the same number of beats. I was fortunate to be able to do this as co-ordinator of music for many years and originally did it for visitors who may not have been believers and would have found the words strange (I also removed thees and thous but that’s another story!)

Comment by cokhavim

April 4, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

Hi Watcher (83643),

There are indeed several instances where gender-neutral language is used in Greek, such as the frequent referring to Jesus as an “anthropos”, or the “if anyone is in Christ…” instead of “if any man is in Christ”. The example you gave of “son” is always the word “uios” which refers to a male son (the same word referred to as “heir” in comments 83649, 83667, 83670). Perhaps you were referring to was the quote from Isaiah in Mt. 12:18. There it is “pais” which is a child of either gender. But here the word carries a definite article with it that is definitely masculine, ie it says “the male child”.

However, even with these gender inclusive instances, you cannot ignore the vast majority of the NT using masculine pronouns and participles to refer to anyone. Take all of 1 John for instance. “The one-who-loves (male) his (male) brother (male) abides in the light.” “Every one-who-hates (male) his (male) brother (male) is a murderer (male).”

And Hebrew is even worse as most of the verbs are gendered too. “May the Lord bless (male) you (male) and keep (male) you (male).” “You (male) shall love the Lord your (male) God”. “Blessed (male) is the man (male) who does not walk (male) in the council of the wicked (male plural).” “He (male) has told you (male) oh human (neutral), what is good and what the Lord requires (male) of you (male).” “Trust (male) in the Lord with all your (male) heart, and on your (male) understanding do not lean (male)”.

Do you get the picture?

Actually I just noticed while picking out these examples that the first person verbs in the Psalms are almost always in the tenses that are not gendered. That is cool.

PS. cokhavim is Hebrew meaning “stars”. I use this screen name for nearly everything because I love the stars. And since nobody else spells it that way it identifies me uniquely (a quick search for this name will tell you a lot about me!). So yes, it is a serious name.

Comment by jlp

April 4, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

I see what you mean by translating “sons” as “heirs” with a footnote. That would accurately translate the idea. Good idea.

Comment by Suzanne

April 5, 2008 @ 12:52 am

It is my belief (as it was his) that there is one gender-specific term that must remain gender-specific. “Son(s).” This word, when used to refer to believers, means that we do indeed become the legal sons of God at adoption. Through most of human history, only male children could inherit. In the time of the writing of the Bible, only male children could inherit. By the use of “son(s)” the NT makes it clear that women are not the property-children of our Father, but His full heirs. All believers stand before God as fully equal children. Through most of history, this needed to be stressed. It still does.

It is interesting to note that in the Tyndale KJV and Luther Bibles it was common to use “children.” Luther does not say “adoption as sons” but simply “adoption.” I do not know why this has become such an issue today. I think that the average reader would understand that the “children of God”, were all men and women, equally heirs of God.

Comment by leigh

April 6, 2008 @ 11:50 am

I do indeed like the idea of “children of God,” though the thought occurs to me that some cultures may indeed still restrict inheritance to males (more specifically the first-born male, perhaps, but male).

In this case I see “heir” as being perhaps a clearer understanding in some contexts, though I do appreciate the familial bond that is more clearly communicated by use of “children.” There’s a slightly different emphasis, of course, depending on which word is used.

Either would be my choice over “son”, though. I just wanted to share thoughts that occurred to me.

Comment by fjs

April 7, 2008 @ 7:50 am

I think that especially in a culture where only males inherit it needs to be clarified that both men and women are in view as the ones who inherit. If a given cultures assumptions are that only males inherit, it would be highly radical and transformative to learn that in God’s econnomy, women also inherit.

You would think that would be an important idea to be clear about.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

April 8, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

Lots of good comments on this “sons” and “children. I read and I learn. You’re all making me more sensitive to the needs of other readers.

Personally, I prefer my translations as literal as possible while still creating English sentences. However, I also recognize that all translations are actually paraphrases because we don’t have one-on-one meaning between English and Greek/Hebrew words and syntax is different. I’ve found it’s best to look up a verse in several translations to get a better feel of what it means. I’m also comfortable with settling on a version you prefer. I tend to read the King James, because it’s what I grew up with, and study the NASB, with checks elsewhere.

I also like lots of footnotes in a Bible and especially translator’s footnotes. It’s something that excites me with the wide and diverse “bibles” for different groups and purposes that are currently being published. God is blessing us with so many means of access to His word!

Comment by Suzanne

April 8, 2008 @ 9:21 pm

Hubert,

It would be much better if those concerned about maintaining the use of the grammatical gender of the original languages just read Greek and Hebrew.

FOr example, while some Psalms address the hypothetical “man” as in “Blessed is the man who ….” and others have generic he for “the one who…” other Psalms have grammatical feminine gender throughout since the Psalmist addresses the self. The self, (soul) has feminine grammatical gender and so the entire Psalm is written in the feminine gender, see Ps. 103.

So when someone expresses concern about gender in translation I would like to know if they mean that they would like to retain the gender of the KJV, the RSV, the original languages, or if they mean that they would like to see preference given to the masculine because they believe this expresses a theological truth about how God relates to humans.

I am not suggesting that you think this but some people have ideas of this sort.

Comment by Lolly

April 8, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

JLP, in regards to your comment in 83361, sometimes “man” really is supposed to mean man! You are exactly right that in the Constitution, “man” meant a white man over 21 who owned property. Thank goodness we’re come a long way!

As to the Bible, back in my patriarchal days I used to listen to Focus on the Family. One day Dobson had Grudem on to denounce the TNIV. Grudem was saying that women didn’t need inclusive language because they could recognize when the Bible included them. Even back then I found his attitude extremely patronizing. Now I cringe that I ever wasted my time listening to the man.

Hubert, I’m with you. Because I love studying the Word, especially in the original languages, I like to use a literal translation like the NASV. However, I think the TNIV has performed a valuable service and I’m glad it was created.

Comment by Liz

April 9, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

I’m amazed that someone could say something like was quoted above by Grudem. What that says to me is that the Bible was written for men and sometimes women were included. I’m sure these folk don’t really realise what they’re saying and it’s a case of ‘God forgive them – they know not what they do’

Comment by Sue

April 10, 2008 @ 6:06 am

Liz, I don’t believe it’s a matter of Grudem not knowing what he’s saying. He’s not saying that the Bible was written for men. He believes the masculine language should be used to represent male headship over women. He believes that God Himself instituted this and that we as humans should abide by the way God did it. For instance, Grudem points out that the Bible says that God created man in His own image; male and female He created them. He says God called them both man to demonstrate that God created men to represent both men and women. This is because man was created first and the reason he was created first is because God calls man to be the head of woman. So in essence, what Grudem was saying is that God created men to represent the human race as the God-designated head of the race,and women are to understand that they are being represented under that headship. When a woman insists on gender-inclusive language, she is being an ungodly woman because she is not accepting God’s designated order for men and women.

Comment by Hubert Edgar

April 10, 2008 @ 11:59 am

Suzanne, thanks for your comments. I know very, very little about Hebrew. Like most Christians, I put a lot of faith in translators who are experts. From what you’re saying, maybe a more accurate translation would be to use feminine pronouns in the Psalms. It’s certainly a good thing to know. I’ll keep it in mind as I read the Psalms.

Concerning how God addresses us in the Bible, I have a somewhat unusual view. The body of believers is called the Bride of Christ. To my mind, that makes the Church feminine. So, in a spiritual way, that is to say the same way in which God is masculine, I am feminine because of my status as a bride. While I am a son and therefore an heir, that concept is used more metaphorically. It imparts legal information, not gender identification. Being a bride means I have that deep, trusting, and even physical relationship with God. As a child, I have a similar relationship, but one that is subservient to God and is able to depend on God to protect and guide me.

Our relationship with God is far too complex, too broad, too expressive to fit into a strictly gender-related relationship. Our human relationships themselves are pictures of our divine relationship; imperfect pictures, marred by sin and too simplistic to encompass what we have with God.

So, Lolly, my friend who also likes literal translations, when I read these great intellectual attempts to translate the Word, I’m sure you, like I, keep in mind that God communicates to us in incomplete ways because our minds are not capable of fully understanding. The Spirit reveals to us what we cannot know on our own: truth: beautiful and terrible truths.

Making cases for gender issues based on pronouns and related parts of speech is, I think, poor scholarship. It takes little pronoun mole hills and makes them into laws God never made nor intended. Nor is gender the only place where this kind of pseudo-scholarship occurs. I think the basis is that the scholar goes into Scripture to find what he/she/it wants to find there and, big surprise, that “scholar” finds just what they thought they would.

I’m afraid I’m one who can never say in 20 words what can be said in 200!

Comment by Liz

April 11, 2008 @ 5:46 am

Sue, I agree with you about Grudem’s statements re gender and think that he and others like him do not realise what they are doing to women when they say things like that. They believe wholeheartedly that how they read the bible is the only way and feel they are being fair and godly in their assessments. They also do not realise that they are not honouring God’s original intention for his creation.
That’s what makes it so hard to discuss the issue with complementarians but we must at least try.

Comment by Sue Mattingly

April 11, 2008 @ 7:13 am

This discussion is very interesting and worthy. I wish that it only had academic consequences. At best, exclusive language disenfranchises women and girls. At worst, it can lead to situations such as the recent news about the Fundamentalist LDS.

Comment by Suzanne

April 11, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

Hubert,

Most often the pronouns are masculine, as in Psalm 1 the paradigmatic “man” ish is masculine. But in Psalm 103 the address to “self” or the “soul” is in the feminine.

For the people of God, they can be masculine as in Ex. 4:22 “Israel, my son,” or feminine as in “daughter Zion” or “daughter Jerusalem.” This reflects the metaphorical use of grammatical gender, but it is not a universal truth that the people of God are feminine or masculine.

Think of water – power of life, and of death. Fire also represents the “spirit” but also “destruction.” Metaphor is metaphor.

Even if the feminine is the daughter/bride in Hebrew (sometimes mother), also we need to remember that the “excellent wife” of Proverbs 31 means “noble wife.” For example, this was translated into Greek as “andrea” meaning literally “manly” or “courageous” and then into Latin as “fortis” or “strong” and then into English as “virtuous” meaning excellent, but now read back as “chaste.” In fact, the word “virtuous” comes from “vir” which is Latin for “man” so “virtuous” could be read back as “manly.” Woman as either “manly” or “chaste” found in exactly the same word.

This little example shows that over the millennia the “good wife” has been understood as manly, courageous, strong or chaste, depending on the metaphorical understanding of masculinity and femininity over the centuries.

Personally, I think the eshet chayil or excellent wife, really means “noble wife” as in heroic wife, as a class statement, she is a wife of noble class, and she earns this title of “nobility” by her industry, strength and wisdom.

There is, IMO, a basic misunderstanding about masculinity and femininity in the church today. True sexual complementarity is man and woman as “king and queen,” rather than “ruler” and “subject” as is so sadly claimed by the very flawed kephale study of Grudem.

The godly man and woman are both noble together, rather than the “noble male” and the “dependent female.”

Comment by jlp

April 11, 2008 @ 3:49 pm

If the psalms are in the feminine gender, then those who are against gender inclusive versions of the Bible should support the use of the feminine gender only in psalms.

Comment by Suzanne

April 11, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

JLP

The Psalms are not typically in the feminine. I must have given a false impression. Only when the entity addressed is in the feminine then the verb is in the feminine. These entities include the “soul” “Zion” and “Jerusalem” for example.

Most of the Psalms are in the masculine addressing God, or addressing the congregation as a group. My point would be simply that the pronouns and inflections are not uniquely in the masculine but sometimes also in the feminine, so Grudem can hardly argue that God intends that only the masculine pronoun should be used, or that the masculine pronoun has theological importance.

Comment by jlp

April 12, 2008 @ 5:57 am

Thanks for explaining Suzanne. I get it now.

Comment by cokhavim

April 12, 2008 @ 8:33 am

And don’t forget that “Spirit” is sometimes feminine and sometimes masculine (but more often feminine as far as I can see), even in adjacent verses (like in Psalm 51). In Genesis 1, for example, the Spirit of God is hovering (fem) over the waters. Now what would Grudem say to that? :P

Liz (83973): “What that says to me is that the Bible was written for men and sometimes women were included.” Actually I get that impression straight from the bible itself. Just about every commandment, blessing, and curse written in Hebrew is written to a masculine singular addressee. There are times when you’re supposed to know that the masculine singular includes women. For example, in the passage on the Nazirite vow, “When a man or a woman desires to make the vow of the Nazirite… then he shall not drink of the fruit of the vine…” etc. But that just shows that in Hebrew, the man really does represent the woman. Doesn’t this irk anyone else besides me?

Let’s not ignore this blatantly patriarchal language when arguing for gender-inclusive bibles. We must not argue that the bible is inherently gender-inclusive, and therefore our translations should be as well. That is simply not true. Ok, so the small fraction of cases that really are gender-neutral should be translated as gender-neutral (and even ones that are feminine, like the Spirit of God). But it doesn’t help the cause of egalitarianism to ignore the overwhelmingly patriarchal language of the bible; rather it gives fuel to people like Grudem.

In fact, I don’t really know a good reason why we should have gender-inclusive bibles except maybe as a more comfortable resource for new believers. But shouldn’t we present the bible as it is, with all its gore and violence, and all its patriarchy and sexist language? Shouldn’t we condemn the evil that the bible depicts and explain that this is the world that God wanted to redeem?

Comment by Liz

April 13, 2008 @ 12:24 am

Cockhavim..on reading your quote of my comment, I realise it didn’t say what I meant it to say. I meant to say that Grudem’s comment suggests that the bible was written for men mainly and that sometimes somen were included.

I think we should always have bible translations which are the closest we can get to the original language and sense, both for old and new believers but I have a particular interest in ‘readable’ bibles for those enquiring into the Christian faith and new believers. Even ‘old’ believers can not necessarily understand the thoughts expressed and just be attached to the sound of certain verses. Anything which makes God’s word more understandable must surely be good.

Even with the gender inclusive language and modern english translations, there is still enough patriarchy to show the kind of culture in which the OT was written and how it had developed by the time of Jesus. No amount of gender correction can take away from the general tone of patriarchy which pervades and which you rightly point out shows how much the world needs redeeming.

Comment by cokhavim

April 13, 2008 @ 2:02 pm

Liz (84150), actually I understood your original meaning that Grudem sounded like he was saying the bible was written for men, and sometimes women were included. But what I’m saying is that if you read the Hebrew bible, it really does sound like it was written primarily for men. Take the ten commandments, for example. “You shall not covet… your neighbour’s wife.” Well, how many women will have that problem? What about coveting your neighbour’s husband?

I like your point about “readability”. The bible is confusing enough as it is, so why confuse people even more by writing “men” when it really means “people”? That is a good point.

Comment by Suzanne

April 13, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

Cokhavim,

You are quite right about the Ten Commandments and other passages being addressed to men within a patriarchal framework. We do not want to hide these facts.

However, we also need to recognize that some Bible versions have the goal of placing masculinity above accuracy. I have trouble with these Bibles making the claim that they are literal.

For example, in Greek the word anthropos means “person” of “human” and it is the word used in philanthropy and anthropology. But look at this.

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people (anthropos),” 1 Tim. 2:1

“and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men (anthropos) who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2:2

Why is anthropos translated as “people” in the first verse, and by “men” in the second? Because the translators do not think that women can be Bible teachers.

So, I agree that we should not hide the patriarchy that is there. But I protest strongly against a translation that inserts into the translation a patriarchal slant that was not in the original.

This is a serious problem throughout. Yes, we must face the patriarchy of that society as it was. But what are we going to do about the patriarchy of our own society?

Comment by Suzanne

April 13, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

I forgot to mention that this is the ESV, Grudem’s translation.