The CBE Scroll

I would like to point out an article in The Weekly Standard by Christina Hoff Sommers, in the May 21, 2007 issue, called “The Subjection of Islamic Women and the Fecklessness of American Feminism.” The first paragraph reads as follows:

“The subjection of women in Muslim societies–especially in Arab nations and in Iran–is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.”

She goes on a couple of paragraphs down: “The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not? The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is–by tendency and sometimes emphatically–antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater.”

Sommers then follows with example after example of the skewed priorities of American (secular) feminism and takes them to task for their moral short sightedness. She sites Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, for example, who draws a “common thread of misogyny” between Christian Evangelicals and the Taliban, and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, who characterizes Christian evangelical movements (that’s us!) as “Christian Wahhabism,” i.e., the name of the sect that is the inspiration for Osama bin Laden. These radical feminist philosophies “collapse moral categories in ways that defy logic, common sense, and basic decency,” such as casually placing “limiting young people’s access to accurate information about sex and opposing abortion [in the U.S.] on the same plane as throwing acid in women’s faces and stoning them to death” [in third world countries]. Likewise they seem to be “incapable of distinguishing between private American groups that stigmatize gays and foreign governments that hang them.”

It may be that some of these feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism, she says, and find it difficult to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. Maybe they find it easier to find fault with American society for minor inequities than criticizing heinous practices elsewhere. To her credit, Sommers does mention some activity in the secular feminist movement, such as Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno’s efforts with the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) to create a national campaign in 1997 to expose the crimes of the Taliban.

Fortunately, Muslim women are creating their own growing movement to address their plight. “Islamic feminists,” says Sommers, “believe that women’s rights are compatible with Islam rightly understood. One of their central projects is progressive religious reform. Through careful translation and interpretation of the Koran and other sacred texts, scholars challenge interpretations that have been used to justify sexist customs. They point out that forced veiling, arranged marriages, and genital cutting are rooted in tribal paganism and are nowhere enjoined by the Koran. Where the Koran explicitly permits a practice such as the physical chastisement of wives by husbands, the feminist exegetes try to show that, like slavery, the practice is anachronistic and incompatible with the true spirit of the faith. This kind of interpretation of scripture has been practiced by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars for centuries. Now Islamic women want to play a part in it, and nothing in Islamic law, they believe, prohibits their doing so.”

I don’t know how much of this slanted piece I believe, but it does appear that Islamic feminism differs radically from its best known contemporary American secular counterpart — having instead a faith-based, family-centered and positive-towards-men approach. Too bad that the CBE version of gender equality isn’t better known, or Sommers might have seen some hope in America.

I appreciate CBE’s international scope and was happy to see the most recent issue of Priscilla Papers highlights gender justice worldwide. The moral need and imperative to engage Muslims can’t be emphasized enough. Does anyone else see an opportunity for Christian egalitarians to dialog with and help our Muslim sisters? Although the details may be different, we speak the same type of religious language and have similar approaches. Perhaps some CBE members have already involved themselves in such projects. If so, why aren’t they better known? Maybe if [more/bigger/more impressive] joint projects could be undertaken, perhaps both our respective patriarchal societies could be helped.

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 wondering if many of you are uncomfortable in Bible book stores. It seems like an awful lot of them are highly gendered. Books aimed at women and girls (guess which ones); books aimed at men and boys (“Bible stories of strength and courage!”). Non-book items, more than half the inventory, like pseudo-Victorian home knick-knacks (decorative pastel figurines like Precious Moments), dried flower wreaths and teddy bears give a sweet, non-cognitive feeling to the place.

Julie Ingersoll makes similar observations in a chapter of Evangelical Christian Women; War Stories in the Gender Battles called, “The Power of Subtle Arrangements and Little Things,” where she says, “But what is most interesting is that the distinct demarcation between genders is carried through from the toys to the items intended for adults. While there is an element of genderedness to gifts and books in the large culture, it is not nearly so prominent as it is in the Christian bookstores.” Christian writers wanting to break through the stereotypes, as we’ve seen in a recent post, have their work cut out for them. A look in most any Bible book store will be most sobering.

Apparently we been noticed by Ms. Magazine, even if only for marketing purposes. I received the following email.

The new issue of Ms. is on newsstands today (April 24), full of its usual galvanizing coverage of the feminist movement. We thought some of the stories might make for interesting posts on The Scroll or Christian Egalitarians, particularly Ani’s recent work to revitalize Buffalo, Geena Davis’ campaign to get female characters into G-rated movies, and our cover story–on the women garment workers who are the real victims of the Jack Abramoff scandal. In addition, gender and language expert Deborah Tannen explained to Ms. why her new New York Times bestseller, “You’re Wearing That? Understanding Mothers and Daughters in Conversation,” is a feminist book. [from] Jessica

Anyone read this mag regularly?