Christianity and Gender

You may have got the idea from my recent posts on the ESV (English Standard Version) of the Bible:

• 42: Flattery or Punishment?.
• 42: I am a Christian Too � Is God Male?.
• 42: The ESV Bible.

that the way gender is understood and presented by Christianity is important to me. Adrian is still (nicely) encouraging discussion in Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Blog: ESV and stirring up controversy so here is more.

Actually, I don't think I have really started to say how important I feel Gender is for Christianity. For many years I resisted the call to ordained ministry on the grounds that the Church has too many middle class, white, male ministers and another one was definitely not needed.

My own denomination is still struggling to implement its own understanding of this issue see the 2002 conference report from the Methodist Church Committee for Gender Justice.

Ok, so when I read about the ESV and its gender policy and the comments by many of the same people on the TNIV I get upset and worried. Now I am not an expert on Hebrew and Greek, so I go and read those who are (lots of links below). Despite all the rhetoric about the differences in translation policy I am now of the opinion that Gender is the only really key difference between the ESV and TNIV. I believe the ESV tries to pretend that it is about more than this (and to hide this they are forced to use a lot of antiquated English), but it seems to me that much of their comments boil down to finding reasons to support their gender policy.

Therefore I have been collecting links to experts writing on this issue (and there is a lot of very non expert writing out there to wade through). Here is what I have so far:

First a great series by Mark D. Roberts on "Is the TNIV Good News?" see Volume 1, Volume 2 and Volume 3 (which I hope Robert will get back to).

Second an interview with Eugene Nida in Meaning-full Translations - Christianity Today Magazine, I know a lot of Conservatives just won't bother reading that due to their prejudices about Dr Nida. But it is full of good stuff:

How do you react to complaints about the way gender has been handled in meaning-based translations?

Face the fact that ancient Israel was a male-dominated culture. You had to have ten men to form a synagogue. Sixty women couldn't be a synagogue without ten men.

In many instances, though, it is good to talk about people and leave it ambiguous. There is nothing sacred about specifying always men, men, men.

What are the limits in our translating gender references for the modern American church? Should we say brothers and sisters everywhere Paul writes adelphoi?

We're stuck with English, and we have to make a decision if we're going to be inclusive. It seems to me that the words in those contexts are referring to people in general. It's not referring just to men, although we have to admit that in many instances they were men who were involved in the discussions. But the implications of such passages are for people in general.

Then a whole list of important papers on this subject that I am still working my way through. But includes a key paper for the ESV camp: Can Greek aner ("man") sometimes mean "person"? No, says Dr. Wayne Grudem but there are also two rebuttals that you should read

• Against Grudem: Aner and Masculinist Misprisions of NewTestament Meaning, [a PDF file] by Ann Nyland
• Can Greek aner ("man") sometimes mean "person"?, [a doc file - aargh] by Daniel B. Wallace (27KB)

You will see that others are picking this up regarding the ESV such as SansBlogue: The ESV (doctrine : language : usability) that I have referred to in 42: Flattery or Punishment? and the points are not minor.

Finally I would like to return to an aspect of the (long) articles by  Mark D. Roberts which is Is the TNIV Good News? Volume 2: Part 15: How Common Is Inclusive Language in Today's English? where he makes 4 theses (lots of supporting detail in his articles):

Inclusive Language in Contemporary English, Thesis 1: In contemporary English usage there is a wide range of practice when it comes to inclusive language.

Inclusive Language in Contemporary English, Thesis 2: The use of inclusive gender language is more common among younger speakers, though this fact can be exaggerated.

Inclusive Language in Contemporary English, Thesis 3: People who actively participate in conservative evangelical Christian communities are less likely to use inclusive gender language and more likely to be comfortable with traditional male generic language.

Inclusive Language in Contemporary English, Thesis 4: There are different kinds or degrees of inclusive language.

This makes sense to me except that it seems to me that in UK English culture we now have moved generally in society towards thesis 2 so that thesis 3 (as typified by the ESV) is more out of sync with the general population than it maybe is in the US (I would be interested to hear what Adrian thinks about this).

Conclusion

My fear is that there is an agenda with the ESV to re-inflict an even more patriachial view of scripture onto Christianity than existing translations. It plays on fears and mis-information such as the campaign against the TNIV, which so far, I believe, shows a much more accurate rendition of intention regarding gender in the original texts. It plays on phrases like political correctness (gender accurate translation is nothing to do with political correctness).

Let us end with Galations 3:28 which even the ESV has as

Galations 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

May that be as true for the Church as it is for Christ.

Comments

[Wayne Leman]

Write on, Dave! My wife and I have shared these same concerns. My heart has been broken seeing the divisions among Christians which the gender issues has brought about, and, in particular, the latest divisions coming over the litmus test of conforming to a particular view of gender to be expressed in Bible translations. Christians in the U.S. are now highly polarized over these issues. I hope it will not be too long before there is some healing, and toning down of the rhetoric on all sides. The Bible itself teaches so much about how we should conduct ourselves when there are disagreements. And it even elevates women to new roles within the ministry of Christ and Paul. There are women scholars who are still being prevented from exercising their Spirit-given gifts of teaching in wider contexts than just Sunday School for children or women. Of course, it all hinges on the interpretation of a few verses from Paul whose meaning is still not agreed upon withing christendom.

[Jesus Christ]

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

[Adrian]

Am going to link to this, be perepared for a possible deluge! I hope any responders are as gracious as you have been!

[rev mommy]

Interesting quote, Jesus.
Without a woman, you would not have been born at all.

My challenge to those who wish for literal translations, TRANSLATE LITERALLY. Put all of the scatological language in. Put all the feminine forms in. All of them. Even where the Hebrew infers feminine aspects for God. Translate the "feet" in Ruth in context. Don't tell me you aren't putting doctrine in the translation when you are by avoiding "nastiness" that exists within the Bible.

Translate the word "women deacons" in Timothy -- yes, right after Paul writes that women can only be saved by childbirth. Be a translator in integrity. And in faith.

[rev mommy]

Oh yeah, Jesus.
"if a MAN not be born again, HE cannot see the kingdom of God."
This translation leaves out half the human race. Is there any hope for women, then? I personally understand that it is a generic "man" meaning "mankind" and a generic "he" for "he/she" but I am an educated person -- not a woman who has been terroized by men her whole life. In our society, there are women who would not relate to this verse, understanding salvation is for men. Alone.

BTW,
I do not believe that the Redeemer and Savior of the world would comment on a blog. Don't hide behind anonymonity. You loose credability.

[Glenn Piper]

If you really want to come up to speed on the detrimental effects on the Word of God of the overuse of inclusive language (as in, when it is not supported by the text) please, please go to the following url and read;

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/tniv/articles_tniv/2005_0511_article_translation_grudem.php

One of the many reasons why I like,and use, the ESV is that if the original text supports inclusive language then generally it is reflected in the ESV, but equally if it is not in the original text it remains as he, him etc, etc.

As regards the reference in a previous post to 'women deacons' in Timothy. Ummm, all I can say is that you must be reading a very strange version, because in 1 Timothy 3:10-12 it says '10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober minded, faithful in all things.12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.'

However you might want to re-interpret v11, v12 clearly indicates that deacons are to be the husband of one wife, so a woman deacon would have to have a wife, which is very forbidden and therefore totally unlikely. (and no I am not being sarcastic, just running through the knock on effect)

I am sorry that some women see having potential responsibility for half the human race (adult) as restrictive. If you add in all the children you actually find that it is somewhat more than half the human population of the entire planet.
That should be more than enough to keep anyone busy and fruitful for the Lord whilst employing whatever gifts God has given.
We are all equal before God, but our roles are different. That was established before the fall, not after.

[DaveW]

Glen, if you read my post and particularly follow the links you will see detailed technical discussion relating to that claim for 910 errors - which are mostly caused by the Greek aner ("man"). You will also see cases where the ESV does not seem to be following the inclusiveness of the original text. At the moment you appear to be reacting purely from emotion, it would help us all if you tried first to step aside from that. Please also re-read your last paragraph and try to imagine reading that as a woman, I think you would find it deeply hurtful to be dismissed in this way. Think about what you have written in relation to Galations 3:28 for example.

[Talmida]

I cannot comment on the NT as my Greek is non-existent, but I have been surprised at how non-sexist the Hebrew Bible is (compared to English ones, that is).

God did not create Adam with a capital A. He created THE adam from the adamah. The most accurate translation might be "the earthling from the earth" (although Robert Alter goes with the Human from the humus). God created the Earthling, created him in His own image, male and female He created them.

The Earthling calls his woman's name "Life" because she was the mother of all living. There is no Adam and Eve, only the Earthling and Life.

God is portrayed as a mother writhing in labour to give birth to her people, Israel. God is described as a mother holding us to her bosom. THere are male images too! God is beyond male and female.

English translations which continue to use the word "Man" to represent the Human race are perpetuating a great wrong. If your children do not read books written before 1975, historical documents, or pronouncements from the Vatican, then they never see Man as synonym to Humankind. The common meaning of that word in English has changed. Nowadays the word "man" means "male" on tv, in film, in all modern literature. For Bible translations to continue to use a word that a)offends a great number of people and b) is incomprehensible to the younger generation is IMO irresponsible.

If modern translations aim at accuracy, then an honest accuracy should be their goal. By all means translate God as He when the Hebrew does so. But don't chicken out and fall back on KJV words when you know the truth.

[rev mommy]

First, I do not believe that 1 Tim is an authentic epistle of Paul, but written from the Pauline school. It is considered a Catholic epistle because of it's late date.

Second, the verse in question is 1Tim 3:11, which can be translated "likewise, women (missing and assumed noun) should be..." Current scholarly thought (by both camps, liberal and conservative) agree that it is unclear how and what the adjective "woman" (usually not wife in contemporaneous literature with the Bible) modifies. If you look for parallel sentence structure, it seems evident that it is "women deacons." Translate the Greek yourself and see if you can find any legitimacy in this translation -- it's there. Look openly and honestly and struggle with it for a while -- I know I did.

I had a person argue with me until we were both exhausted that the other verse in question, I Tim 2:15 can be translated one way that is very hostile to most women -- if translated "she shall be saved only by bearing children (male assumed)" then all women who have not born a son will perish. Is this the gospel of Christ?

Again, if I were not to preach and teach, why oh why would God give me my intellect? My curiosity? My desire to dig deep into scripture? My love of people? My skill at counseling? My skill at preaching and proclaiming the Good News? My heart for witness? My heart for the sacraments? Why? Are these gifts not to be used?

I actually tried to limit my ministry to women at one point -- but the men kept showing up to listen to me. Should I have barred the door? Locked them out? Sat down and be quiet? How would the Gospel be proclaimed by that?

[DaveW]

I understood that a possibility for I Tim 2:15 is "she shall be safe through"?

[Glenn Piper]

DaveW, I have been reading the opposing view for over 12 years and still cannot square it.
Just because I am presenting something you would rather not entertain does not mean I am reacting out of emotion.
Attcking me wont change the truth.
And no I don't think my last paragraph was dismissive at all, (my wife agrees that it is not as you suggest and she is a woman) just a statement of fact. How can a potential harvest field of over half the human race be restrictive.
That different roles were established before the fall is a Biblical fact, not my imposed opinion.
So kindly steer away from personal attacks. It does you no credit

[DaveW]

Glen,

Sorry you thought I was attacking you in order to change the truth. I responded, perhapes too sharply because I still believe that both your posts are dismissive of women.

"How can a potential harvest field of over half the human race be restrictive."

a) it is very restrictive compared to the field you give to men.

b) It denies entirely the ministry of 25% of UK Methodist ministers

c) It is written in a tone that comes across to me as superior and arrogant. As if you are saying I am a man and I can tell women what is best for them because God has put all men over all women. Oh and yes they can be thankful that I recognise they have a role to minister to other women and children.

d) It appears dismissive to me when your comment came without any hint of an apology immediately after that of a women minister (and if you read about rev mommy you will discover that she is far more qualified in Biblical languages and theology than I and probably than you). You stomped all over her calling and ministry without even ackowledging it.

Putting aside these points I return to my argument that

a) many scholars (I believe a majority) say that in most cases the Hebrew "man" is inclusive of women. Do you accept that even if you do want to accept this that it is valid for others to do so?

b) Have you checked what experts say about Talmidas point "God did not create Adam with a capital A. He created THE adam from the adamah"? Again this is widely held by experts and it means that a belief in the superiority of men (which is a clear subtext when yoiu talk of different roles in this way) is challenged by a different but valid reading of Hebrew.

c) What does Galations 3:28 mean in this context? You have entirely ignored that (when you appear to ignore all counter arguments it is one reason why I accused you of an emotional response).

d) I had not wanted to expand this out to consider the roles of women and men, in many ways that is a different discussion. First I wanted to consider the "simple" translation issue between the ESV and TNIV regarding which more accurately represents the hebrew.

e) A key point that many ESV supporters miss is that on the translation philosophy page for the ESV it clearly says that in many cases male terms are to be read as inclusive. Do you accept this?

[Jeremy Pierce]

It's amazing the ignorance that I see in this discussion, from both sides, and I have to say that much in this specific comment thread exhibits it. The inclusive language issue is completely independent of the debate between complementarians who see God establishing gender distinctions as good and absolute egalitarians who want to remove any sense of the good in God's creation of gender. (I suppose you can see where I'm coming from on that issue!)

The inclusive language issue is entirely separate. Some of the best defenders of TNIV-style inclusive langage are complementarians, including D.A. Carson, Craig Blomberg, and Bruce Waltke. The arguments have to do with linguistic facts about the English language. There is almost universal agreement about the facts about the Greek language, including that 'aner' almost always refers to men, that 'anthropos' almost always refers to human beings in general, and that 'adelphoi' can refer to groups of mixed sex. The debate is over whether the English language has changed sufficiently to justify removing the older style language that many younger people don't sense as including them and whether we should be so concerned to preserve the mere form of the text that we don't care about its meaning.

There are legitimate concerns for preserving the form, and formal translations are good for certain purposes, especially for someone who knows that certain forms in the Greek are inclusive. There are also legitimate concerns for preserving the meaning of the text, which the formal translations sacrifice in cases like this. You can't do both easily in every case, and inclusive language cases are one of the more difficult kinds. I think there must be a place for both styles of translation, because both purposes need to be met. Anyone who resists the one as twisting scripture seems to me to be placing political concerns over accuracy. Anyone who resists the other as stodgy conservatism without real conviction is just as politically motivated in ways that seem to me to be equally immoral. Both sides are causing division that seems to me to be truly evil in its motivation, even if there are legitimate issues each side has to offer.

I say keep the issues. They're real issues. The fact that many people can care about both issues without seeing either style of translation as evil shows that those who can't have such an attitude (on either side) are importing something else into it, something wholly unChristian. I don't see the TNIV, the ESV, or any other major translation as unChristian. I do think those who see any of them as inherently bad are opposing the fundamental concerns of the gospel in the same way the parties of Paul, Apollos, etc. in I Corinthians were opposing the fundamental concerns of the gospel. It's causing division over something very stupid. The primary disagreement is over linguistic facts of the English language, not over the authority of scripture or over the issue of gender roles. Causing divisions over that is evil.

Condemning a Bible translation over that is equally evil. This is the word of God we're talking about, and the word of God is in the ESV, the TNIV, the KJV, the Message, the CEV, the NKJV, the NASB, and even the NWT. Some of these translations capture important features of God's word better, but others capture different features better. D.A. Carson rightly calls this Bible Rage. It's mistaking a question with some importance for something worth getting so angry at someone that you misrepresent not only their motives but even their actual position. That kind of blinding anger has no place in the body of Christ.

[Jeremy Pierce]

The deacon passage has a word that could be translated as "women" or as "wives". It gives requirements for deacons, and then it says "as for the women" or "as for the wives". Scholars of all stripes on gender issues disagree on which is the intended meaning. It may be talking about requirements on the wives of deacons, and it may be talking about requirements on the female deacons. I happen to think it's the latter. It's irrelevant to the inclusive language issue, of course, because this isn't an inclusive term, and it's also irrelevant to the complementarian/egalitarian issue, because you can believe in divinely-instituted role distinctions without believing that those distinctions extend to deacons. My congregation won't have women in elder or worship leader roles, for instance, but we have a woman as a deacon. I've been in other congregations that have what they call deaconesses, which are basically women deacons in addition to the men deacons. Sometimes they have their own meetings and meet slightly different needs, but they aren't really any different in principle.

[Jeremy Pierce]

It seems to me that the primary principle behind egalitarianism is that it's evil to think God might have deliberately given one person one role with authority over someone else with a different role. One problem with that is that God does this all the time completely independently of gender. God places people in authority and others under them. Is it insulting to the whole congregation to be told to submit to their elders? Is it insulting to the whole nation to be told to submit to their political leaders? Isn't this a nation of equals and a church of equals? Egalitarians who insist that difference of roles means difference in basic equality have to oppose all role distinctions in the church. Paul spends a lot of time defending the existence of role distinctions in I Corinthians 12 and other places, and the same exact points come up in the gender role discussion.

I think it's even worse when you think about this with respect to the Trinity. Egalitarianism amounts to saying that Christ, who is eternally in submission to the Father's will, is somehow lesser than the Father. The role distinctions are obvious in the Trinity. They're all through the middle chapters of John (and all of John really), the first chapter of Colossians, I Corinthians 15, Philippians 2, and many other places.

Paul explicitly states in I Corinthians 11 that gender roles were instituted before the fall based on creation order, and he says it's based on representing the relationship between Christ and the church (also in Ephesians 5) but more importantly for this point the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son is not inferior in any way to the Father, but he consistently submits to the Father's will. He is exalted by the Father in his glorification, but he submits all things back to the Father even in that glorification, according to I Cor 15. It's true that this is entirely voluntary, but that's all complentarians believe is true of a woman's submission to her husband or any congregational member's submission to the elders. If biblical relations between husband and wife are based on that, and if role distinctions in ministry are based on that, then what does it say about our attitude to the biblical portrait of Christ to insist that the complementarian view is demeaning to women? It strikes me as a fundamentally anti-Christ attitude in its implications, even if those who exhibit it aren't thinking in those terms and won't see it that way.

Furthermore, I can't understand this wholly unbiblical idea that we should stive for authority as a good in itself or that we should see being in a place of restricted influence as bad or as not of God. God gives and takes away, and that includes sphere of influence. Those few who are given into places of spiritual authority over the church do not deserve it and are not being singled out because of their own worth but because God has placed them in those positions. God will gift someone accordingly, but being gifted is not the ground of being in a position of authority. Being placed there by God is. Responsibility is a fearsome thing, something not to be desired lightly. Being held morally responsible for others' actions and choices is not only not a reward, but it's the sort of thing Jesus said we shouldn't place on such a pedestal as to seek it.

It's sexist to minimize the role of raising up the next generation of believers, including those who will be men, as if it's merely half of humanity. I say that to complementarians who would defend it as such and to egalitarians who would attack it as such. If women are commanded to teach, as they are in scripture, and they're limited to teaching other women and children, as they are in scripture, why is that evil? The only restriction is that their influence in teaching ends once boys grow out of their time of being more easily influenced. That is a restriction, but it's a lot less of a restriction than people make it out to be given that the task that has been traditionally assigned to women is certainly not minor, and egalitarians who say otherwise are unintentionally working from sexist assumptions in minimizing the importance of something truly important that women for centuries have been incredibly successful at doing without much help from men. Some of the most influential work in feminism in recent years has been exactly along these lines, and Christians who deal with this issue haven't even come close to catching up with their observations.

[DaveW]

Jeremy,

Thank-you

[DaveW]

Jeremy,

"There are legitimate concerns for preserving the form, and formal translations are good for certain purposes, especially for someone who knows that certain forms in the Greek are inclusive. There are also legitimate concerns for preserving the meaning of the text, which the formal translations sacrifice in cases like this."

My understanding is that actually gender issues can be separated from whether you prefer a formal or a dynamic equivilent translation. For example the original TEV is dynamic equivilent yet not very different from the traditional translations on gender. Following the structure of the original language does not control which English words you choose to use.

Personally I feel the need for both formal translations (which as the ESV notes correctly say allow you to get closer to the original text) and dynamic equivilent translations which can help you understand more easily. I also feel that the paraphrases (eg the Message and the Living Bible) can be extremely helpful. I also believe that even within a translation style it is helpful to have translations with different levels of English (larger or smaller vocabularies, in the case of dynamic translations simpler or more complex sentence structures).

While I may go over the top in comments or responses my desire is for an accurate translation because of the importance and value I place on Holy Scripture. My reading leads me to believe that the ESV does not consistantly choose words that present the gender of the original text clearly into English and two different reasons are given a) they say they use man/men in an inclusive way and b) they do not believe there is as much as inclusive language in the original texts as other scholars do.

Clearly there are differences in the use of English in different contexts and maybe where I live English has moved on more than for other people. Here just as you would not use gay to mean lighthearted and happy you would not use men to mean both women and men. In my context a) is not valid.

As for b) clearly there is a debate and not complete agreement as indicated in the links I gave. My belief after the reading is that the ESV has not gone far enough in accepting inclusive language in the original texts.

As far as Bible rage goes, my ESV arrived today and I will be using it as one of my translations.

[DaveW]

Jeremy,

Clearly we come from very different traditions when it comes to the roles of women and men. In the UK Methodist Church no postion can be restricted by gender. We ordain both women and maen to both presbyters and deacons.

At the same time I have been training on a course with people of every shade of opinion on this subject and including people from traditions similar to your own.

As you say this is a separate discussion, one we can have at another time. One where I will continue to respect those who hold very different views to my own while at the same time knowing that I struggle to be tolerant of those who will not respect those who have different views to their own.

[rev mommy]

Or given the discussion of Adam and Eve in the previous verses, it is an attempt to say that throught the birth on one specific child (Jesus) all will be saved.

However, that is not the *literal* translation.

[rev mommy]

I think Jeremy called me "ignorant." Is that correct?

And I will re-iterate my question: I grew up in the tradition that Jeremy describes -- women teaching women and children until the boys reach a certain age of accountability. However, many men began to come to my studies (this was way back in college, btw). What was I to do? I told them I was uncomfortable with their presence -- because of these passages. But many stayed. Many grew as disciples of Jesus Christ. I saw my affirmation -- I have answered my call. I still struggle with this -- yet I know my skills, talents and gifts. Again I ask, why would God give me these gifts if not to be use.

And to claim these issues are complete distinct is to be disingenuous.

[DaveW]

>>I think Jeremy called me "ignorant." Is that correct?<<

Actually, I think it was more aimed at me, given that you have studied about 10x more than me and remembered more of it as well. Nobody on my course will be surprised at the charge, indeed it is one they make frequently themselves.

Recently, Ros (from the course) and I had an insight when it came to understanding. When we hear the word "recent" in a liturgy lecture I think I last week and she thinks of the Reformation.

I think part of what is going on in these debates is somewhat similar (ie goes over my head). After all I can't even understand how you fire the marshmallows out of these http://reverendmommy.blogspot.com/2005/06/marshmallow-wars.html things. How do they go around the corners in the pipe?

The tradition you both mention is one I have never personally experienced. We have had women ministers since before my teens and assume that well before that this divide had broken down. I cannot imagine having not had ministers like Pat, Sheila, Angie and Sam (to name 4 women ministers who I have been in positions of authority over me as church member and as student) as pastors, ministers, role models and teachers. I would certainly be much more bruised and far more ignorant (yes it is possible) without them and others too.

In my home Church the next minister will be Sue and in the circuit I am moving to there will be an American lady starting at the same time, although also a probationer she is in her final year US style so is much more experienced than me.

[rev mommy]

Ah, I have 12 friends coming over this August -- I hope you can meet up with some of them. They are good people.

And I have no idea about how they go around the corners. They just do. I'd have to ask my Loving Husband how that works (I'm sure it has to do with aerodynamics somehow...)

I truly enjoy your blog, BTW. Even the geeky stuff -- good balance.

[John]

Knowing neither Greek nor Hebrew, I will heed the wisdom of my elders in this thread and not expound upon the quality of different word translations. But given the choice, I choose the most literal translation available and depend upon the study notes to explain any idiomatic difficulties.

Anyway, the debate is resolved by a casual perusal of 2nd Theresa 4:17.

[rev mommy]

Yeah, God is a big middleaged black woman and is she mad!
Watch out!