Together or divided?

My friend Adrian Warnock has been very busy blogging all about a conference called "Together for the Gospel". I have been rather busy too with our 24x7 prayer week so have not commented before. But I have been trying to catch up.

Now I have made some progress in doing so and am rather sad. When I saw the conference title I was excited. Now as I have read more this has gone. All there is now is another attempt to divide the Church and turn back the clocks.

Some years ago people justified slavery through Biblical texts. Some years ago people justified sexism through Biblical texts. I thought we had learned the same lesson. This was a battle fought and won by my parents generation. Now it seems to be coming back from the United States.

I was hoping that we were moving towards progress on other issues such as sexuality. Instead we have a conference lead by four white men, to which no women are invited, which attempts to redefine the Church to exclude and divide. For example:

Article XVI

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within
the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women
from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.

[Updated to final text 5/5/06]

Oh dear.

Satan must be rejoicing at this attempt to ignore scripture, break the church and alienate the general population.

I am lost at how we can move forward towards unity and togetherness for the gospel in the face of this hardening of attitudes gender and sexuality issues. Certainly it seems impossible in human terms so I will continue to pray for the Holy Spirit to lead us all towards repentance, reconciliation and unity.

It seems especially ironic that today I watched a video "Let The Sea Resound (The story of Fiji)" 

Now also available in DVD format as well as VHS, this 79-minute documentary covers the astonishing revival that is currently sweeping through the nation of Fiji. It is a moving and instructive testament of unprecedented Christian unity, contemporary signs and wonders, rapid church growth and genuine socio-political transformation. The breath of God has revived even the land and the sea.
...
In an earlier, but not so distant, age the nation of Fiji groaned under the weight of superstition and socery; ancestral spirits roamed freely promising abundance, and demanding their due; tribal fighting was gruesome and frequent. Fueled by revenge and greed, violent warriors depopulated entire villages--even islands.

Today's Fiji bears no resemblance to its former self.

The church in Fiji unified with a spirit of repentance and a whole country has changed and been rebuilt through the power of the Holy Spirit. We have important issues to resolve in the UK, huge problems I see everyday in the towns and villages around here, we desperately need the transformation that only the gospel can bring through the power of the Holy Spirit.

And what is the church doing? Are we unifying around the gospel. No we are being divided again, fracturing our effectiveness, destroying hope, killing the work of the Spirit.

We need a big wakeup call. This cannot and must not continue. We must put aside these differences and get on with the real work of the Kingdom. What a waste that these preachers are being used to split the Church rather than build the kingdom.

I have been blessed this week through a partnership with all the Churches in Raunds (Church of England, Roman Catholic, Community Church and Methodist) in 24x7 prayer. The Churches here are bringing the Gospel together, we are putting aside our differences for the sake of the Gospel. How terribly sad that a conference called "Together for God" has been doing it's best to do the opposite at the same time. Oh and by the way 50% of the Church Leaders in Raunds are women, in Ringstead it is 66% (not counting retired clergy) and all the better for it.

Please people, for the sake of the Gospel move forward together.

[Update]

Good post at  Euangelion: Together for the Gospel … Not Quite! but as so often some of the comments illustrate how closed the minds are of complementarians. They completely fail to understand simple truths:

• It is possible to be a Christian, an evangelical and not be a complementarian. Therefore to promote this to a core doctrinal belief is divisive.
• There are scriptural passages supporting women in ministry. Romans 16 being a good example. Complementarians ignore these, try to manipulate Greek grammer (see my posts on Wayne Grudem) or otherwise deny them.
• The only group excluded from this conference were women. One was asked to give up her place so that a man could attend.There were men attending who were not pastors (for example one of the commentors to the linked post was there as a student). So it was not limited to pastors only as some try to claim.

[Update 2]

The final text of the conference affirmations and denials is available as a pdf. I have pasted that text into the entry above to be sure I am quoting the final version (I don't see any improvements).

Adrian has a link to this page:

The Other British Christian Blogger Called Warnock is Less Happy About T4G

There really does seem to be two distinct perspectives about the recent Together for the Gospel . . . .

Comments

[Dave Walker]

Spot on. Have drawn.

[sally]

Thank you for this Dave, moving forward together is a major issue, I guess it requires a willingness to get of our individual and denominational soap boxes, but everyone expects that that is the duty of everyone else...there has been a huge debate over women in ministry trundling along over at Jesus Creed.... again it seems impossible for people (Christians) to move forward together...
Why do we find it so hard?

[Bene D]

That was eye watering, I commend you for getting through the articles and all the affirm/denies. I didn't make it. Documents are written by people in love with words. It was about as pedantic as a legal brief, lots of wind.

What struck me is a worship of the bible. I know that isn't what they meant, but that is how it comes across. The word before the Word.

I honestly attempted to read some blog posts, there are so many by so few and the ones I looked at so superfluous, I had to gave up.

Talk is cheap. (maybe not:^) I got no sense of God's grace in this document - although the blog posts I read were by happy pumped up campers - and the the word grace is very properly placed in the structure. What few truths popped out were cultural, such as over-dependence on toys. I shall have to try to read it all, this is not part of my culture or service to God and I have to try harder to hear.

I got no sense of what they are in love with - words, conferences, ideas, leaders, male bonding, writing, producing, achieving dunno. There is something dark lurking just underneath - an 'or else.' Not God's 'or else' an 'or else' I can't place.
I know it's their job to produce, they are paid by churches, they have to sound smart and confident and this is how they've been taught to lead.

I hope these gentlemen aren't offended if most of us don't follow.

[Tim]

Well said, Dave.

As you said, there is solid biblical support for the position you are advocating. But even more important, it seems to me, is the direction the biblical texts are moving in as compared to the culture around them - some of the passages seem patriarchal to us, but the patriarchy is muted compared to that in the societies around them. Obviously they are moving in a direction of more egalitarianism.

The question then needs to be asked 'Was this movement supposed to end when the ink dried at the end of Revelation?' On the issue of slavery, the church has obviously decided 'No - the movement was intended to go further'. And the logic of this position would also demand further movement, it seems to me, on the issue of equality of men and women.

Rather telling that no women were invited tgo the conference! Perhaps they were afraid that competent and theologically literate women might show them up? My own Anglican Bishop, Victoria Matthews, is one of the smartest theologians in Canada!

[DaveW]

Thanks all for the support.

Tim. Rather sadly for me I don't meet many theologians who are not a lot smarter than me and most of them are women :-) Maybe that should motivate me to boost my ego by telling them that they can't exist. If I am feeling fit enough to run fast I could test the theory on Wednesday at the first class of the term.

[Bene Diction]

What am I missing?
Two of the signees are Baptist, one is splinter Presybyterian (PCA?)and one is Covenant(independent?) Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Why is this conference generating talk among a couple of bloggers, to the point it would catch your attention?
I read the articles/denies, it appears to be the same old same old.
What did I miss?
The leaders and followers seem to be Calvinist, Reform, conservative and of course it was US oriented. The leaders are professional christians running parachurch organizations or a church so...
Is it that bloggers attended and chatter level is up?

Sorry Dave, I wanted to ask at other blogs and not bother you, but comments require sign ins.

[j. Mel]

I am a Christian, an Evangelical, I do believe in the inerrancy and authority of Scriptures AND in its timeless truths yet I do NOT hold to Traditionalism. Thanks for taking a stand for women on the issue.

You might be interested in George and Dora Winston's book "RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN". They support fully women in all ministries and/or offices. The book is a biblical theology that took under consideration all passages related, even remotely to the issue. On top of it they refute all 83 arguments of Piper and Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood....

Here's a part of how George W addresses mission leaders struggling to reconcile their great respect for the Word of God with the reality of spiritually gifted female missionaries. Here's his and his wife's journey through the Bible.

"...For many years, I have been haunted by the fact that dozens of clear passages of Scriptures, both in the OT and NT, seem to contradict a few NT passages. For instance, How could Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, be a prophetess and a judge over Israel and speak with authority to Barak while women today are not permitted to speak in the Church or hold any kind of office? And what of her husband? Was this not going against his authority as a husband? (I add to his words that I don't think the complementarian view does)

Questions of that nature kept nagging at me. Could these apparent contradictions be resolved in a way that demonstrates the great coherence, harmony and truth of the Word of God? Being a firm believer in the innerancy of Scripture the answer in my mind was a resounding "yes it can be done!". The question was "How?"

In "RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN: an Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism", my wife Dora and I set out to answer that "How" question. We took the stance that there is no problem with the Word of God, only with our understanding of it and we checked out all passages related to the issue. We have come to believe that developing a biblical theology of women in ALL spheres of authority (State, workplace, nature, marriage, family and Church) enables leaders to reconcile the pressures encountered on the mission field with obviously gifted women missionaries with ones' respect for the Word of God...."

I'd love to hear what you think of the book and if you are interested why not a review or a picutre and link of the book? I don't have a site or anything...yet but I sure would like to see the debate go on with this remarkable book.

I Commented on this book elsewhere and sure hope someone will lend an ear. It does feel often though like crying out in the desert.

Thanks for taking a stand and I hope you will find this helpful.
J. Mel

[jim]

Amen, I posted on this at my site:
http://www.thechurchgeek.com/
blessings, jim

[DaveW]

BD,

I guess because I get itchy when this gets a high UK blogging profile with no pushback. I also get itchy because I get a lot of support, mentoring and encouragement from women ministers and I get cross when they are attacked like this. And they do get a lot of attacks still.

I am already hearing testimonies from women in my Churches of calls that have been put aside and gifts that have not been used because of teaching like this. They are now coming to me to explore their call and ways of using their gifts - but what a waste of years for them and the gospel. I do not want to see any more women hurt through mis-application of scripture.

J Mel,

I have found that book on Amazon and have added it to my shopping list. Have you read Dr Ann Nyland's book "More than meets the eye: the campaign to control Gender translation in Bibles"? This approaches from the technical translation side rather than interpretation and knocks many of Wayne grudem's arguments into the trash can. So much of the complementarian debate relies on poor translation and poor understanding of Hebrew, Greek and English.

I am very traditional in many ways. I believe in Prophets such as Deborah. I believe in the very early Church as described in Scripture with Leaders like Priscilla, Deacons like Phoebe, Apostles like Junia, Evangelists like the Woman at the Well in John 4 etc.

However, I believe that inerrancy is a post enlightenment modernist concept that claims things for Scripture that are not supported by scripoture itself. As a term it confuses rather than helps.

[Bene Diction]

Thanks. I get a bit irritated when I see you linked in a post tagged feminism.

When I was a kid, women missionaries on furlough would often stay at our place on their way through.

They weren't permitted to 'preach' - so for missions week they gave 'talks'. They were so much more qualified academically and with life experience than any of the reverends or elders that 'relinquished' the pulpit so the church could feel good about it's overseas work and it's tolerance.

Yet in their fatique and desire to get back to the people they served with such qualified love, they showed grace and patience in the face of the foolishness of this sad culture. I didn't need to be an adult to understand hyprocrisy and ignorance.

They picked their battles, and I knew them by their fruit.

Feminism - that is a cheap tag coming from Adrian, whom I believe knows better. He got his approval and pat on the back from the US lads, let it be enough.

[David Faulkner]

I guess using the word 'complementarity' is of the same order of spin as saying 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'.

But what offends me most here is the statement that 'this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel'. Which Gospel would that be, then? The message of the Kingdom in the Synoptics that proclaims that God is actively reigning in Jesus the Son who came as a servant? The message of eternal life in John's Gospel? Nope, don't see it there, either. The proclamation in Acts and elsewhere that Jesus and not Caesar is Lord? I seem to have missed it there, too. Or Paul's appropriation of the Roman legal term 'justification'? No, the apostle makes no gender distinctions when talking about that. And we won't even get onto Galatians ...

If this particular biblical interpretation is 'a testimony to the Gospel' is that a snide comment against evangelical egalitarians like myself? I believe in justification by grace through faith, I hold orthodox convictions about the Trinity, of the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral' of scripture, reason, tradition and experience I hold scripture the highest. But - hey - now I discover I'm actually a heretic.

On one level I don't mind the 'complementarians' (if they really must call themselves that) making the case for their beliefs: I don't want to censor them, however much I believe they are dangerously wrong. (Perhaps it's easy for me as man to say that.) But casting implicit slurs upon those who disagree with them is unworthy of Christians.

I'll stop there before I generate more heat than light, if I haven't done so already.

[DaveW]

BD,

I wonder if feminism is another word that has different cultural loadings on the two sides of the Atlantic. If someone is called a feminist why would that be seen negatively?

As a man it does feel somewhat odd to be described as feminist :-) I wonder what real feminists would feel about that.

Your memories of those missionary women are yet another powerful reminder of the high cost some have paid to follow the gospel and respond to their calling. Yet another reminder that it is the God of mission who has a Church (which so often fails to grasp and follow in that mission) rather than the Church of God that has a mission.

[Lorna]

good stuff and JMel I want to read that book.

Thank you for taking time to think and write this through. All of u.

[J. Mel]

DaveW
No I have not read Ann Nyland's book. I do believe that poor translation is a fact. Take for instance II Tim 2:2 "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit to faithful MEN who will be able to teach others also." The word is 'anthropois', a word for people including male and female. Of course no one would know that by reading the english. 20 some years ago I pointed that out to my seminary prof., who brushed it over like it was a detail. It sure wasn't a detail to me.

I believe of this question of women in the Church is a secondary question. The Gospel unites us not these questions. However, Recovering biblical Ministry by Women" is just too good and in the last few weeks I have decided to get on the ban wagon for it. I'm limited. A dynosaur with blogging and such. Can't even create a link or put a picture up. But this T4G is too much. There's nothing 'together' about it. The Winstons' take the time to refute ALL of Piper and Grudem's 83 objections to women. I wish I could scream it on the rooftops (no I'm not hysterical). I guess i'll just type away.

Have a good day and thanks for your comments
J.MEL

[Glenn Piper]

1) Ann Nylands book does nothing but demonstrate a willingness to mis-represent what others have actually said. (yes I have read the book in question, sadly I found it to be full of venom and predjudice. It also failed completely to present anything approaching a case against the complimentary view)

2) The way you all talk it is as if women are being kept from all ministry, period - this is not true. Despite your willingness to mis-read the Bible, women are not to be Elders/Pastors, but that is the only real restriction. You are quick to accuse others of the very blindness you yourselves seem so eager to indulge in.
You also use very dubious logic, as in - some women have done 'x' in the past or present, therefore it proves that it is right to do 'x'.
I once sent 2 years (yes, years) going through the Bible seeking earnestly to find support for women being Elders/Pastors. In the end I had to give up because i could not find anything to support such an idea.
I have also looked at ALL the reasons that have been presented by your goodselves which you seem to think do support such an idea. I have yet to find one that 'holds water', so to speak.

Some of you are very evidently devoted to God and spreading His Gospel and it saddens me greatly to have to make the comments above.
Please believe me when I say that there is no rancour in any of what I have said. If we were face to face the above would be said in a calm and concerned way. I do not rant and rave, so please do not attach that mode of speech to the words above.

[DaveW]

Glenn,

My goal is not to disprove a complementary view. Yes I do believe it is wrong, but I am not trying to change the opinion of all who hold that view. Instead in my other posts

http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2006/05/can_you_respect.html
http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2006/05/a_positive_stat.html
http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2006/05/uniting_christi.html

you will see that I believe there is a problem when one group (in this case the authors of the Together for the Gospel statement) believe they have the only valid view and that all others damage the witness to the gospel. My intention is to encourage unity through acceptance that none of us have all the correct answers and to respect others who have different views (see http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2006/05/jollyblogger_of.html ).

I am impressed by your self-confidence in your own knowledge and abilities. To say that you have reviewed ALL the reasons and that none of it is convincing is far more than I could say. There are so many studies, books and scholars who have studied this issue, and so many churches that have been convinced that I know that I cannot possibly have covered more than a small fraction of the material available.

Glenn, I wish to be able to affirm and support Christians who hold a complementary view on gender. However, that needs to be mutual and this statement is not. So often the arguments against the complementary position are simple attacks without evidence (look at many of the comments on Ben Witherington's post for example). Complementarians need to do more than tell everyone else they are wrong.

For example consider the ways Dr Nyland has been attacked, the bullying tactics used to try to prevent her books from being published, stocked and sold - this does not help the complementarian cause.

Consider the way that many of the women I list in http://42.blogs.warnock.me.uk/2006/05/thankyou_to_som.html have been treated by those of a complementarian view (and my ordination course included both views and I have seen women ministers mistreated more than once) - this does nothing for the gospel.

[Glenn Piper]

Hi DaveW,
Thank you for your measured response.
I did not mean that I had read every book ever written on the subject, I meant that I had looked at and reviewed every scripture that has been used one way or the other in this subject.
After the 2 years I spent specifically looking for support for women Elders/Pastors in the Bible, I have spent a further 14 years constantly reviewing attempts to prove that they can serve in that role and I have yet to see any appeal to scripture that actually does that.
I am sorry if that has come across has 'singing my own praises', that was NOT my intent.
I was just trying to show that I had not come to these conclusions lightly or after a cursory reading of the subject.
I have also read egalitarian books & articles.
Ann Nyland is, I am sad to say, her own worse enemy. If the book I read is indicative of her style then it would harm no one to have her books removed. They do the egalitarian viewpoint harm and certainly do not do justice to the more level headed egalitarians I have read.
I, in all fairness, have to say that I have come across more vitriol and personalised attacks from supporters of the egalitarian viewpoint than that of the complimentarian.
You are a very pleasant exception to that, but you do stand out somewhat in that regard.
That some complimentarians have behaved in a fashion that is unbecoming should hardly be a surprise in a sin sick world. I am sure you are equally aware of egalitarians who have, shall we say, been less than gracious as well.
That there are wolves in sheeps clothing does not negate the witness of all sheep because if it did none of us would be unable to witness to the world, would we?
I know many gifted spiritual women who are also totally unconvinced by the egalitarian position and who do not feel constrained by complimentarianism, far from it, they actually feel released by it.
Much as it may sadden us, the issue of the leadership of the Church cannot be treated as a secondary issue and put to one side in the interest of unity.
As God Himself has designated the leadership of His Church to be male, to treat the subject as one that is not primary would be, in effect, to treat the wishes of our Lord and Saviour as not important. How can I in good conscience ignore the clear teaching of scripture on this or any other issue come to that.
Do I condone men trying to abuse scripture to justify unGodly behaviour towards women, NO, NEVER.
Neither do I condone men trying to stifle the legitimate exercising of spiritual gifts by women. (Please see the Danvers Statement)
God bless

Glenn

May the majesty of God and the weight of his glory and the grace of his dying and rising Son rest upon you. Amen.

[DaveW]

Glenn,

We will have to disagree. I find it absolutely convincing that there is no clear mandate for male only leadership in the Church. I find that male only leadership in the church is a very big issue for people outside the church as is division within the Church.

Disagreement about priorities, styles etc is not a problem. But it is absolutely not acceptable for one part of the Church to tell another that it is not Christian or that it is damaging the witness to the gospel despite it's carefully thought out position on issues such as this. It seems to me that such behaviour goes against all that we know of grace and of Christs teaching on love and unity.

[DaveW]

Glenn, I also disagree with your assesment of Dr Nylands book. It seems you are attacking her style rather than her content. Can you present facts that she has wrong?

[Glenn Piper]

Throughout the book anyone not kowtowing to her interpretation of things is labelled "anti-equality-for-women", this is not a true reflection of complementarianism.

She states that 'Anthropos has no male nuances, no male overtones, and has nothing to do with maleness' yet in Thayer "in regards to sex, a male"
Also see the following from the Septuagint:
Deuteronomy 17:5. "Then you shall bring out that anthropos or that woman, and you shall stone them with stones"
Deuteronomy 22:24. "They shall be stoned with stones, and they shall die, the young woman, because she did not cry out in the city, and the anthropos, because he violated his neighbor's wife."
There is much more evidence that there is indeed a male componenent to the word 'Anthropos'. Of course in the plural it does mean mankind.

This just in the first 2 or 3 pages and it does not get any better.

She implies that 'Aner' primarily means 'a person generally', yet the main meanings of 'Aner' are;
with reference to sex
1) of a male
2) of a husband
3) of a betrothed or future husband
4) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
5) any male
6) used generically of a group of both men and women
So in the context of the singular it does only mean a man, yet you would not gather this from this book.
The list goes on and on.
Her opinion is presented as unarguable fact, yet it is not unarguable, far from it.

[Phillip Fayers]

The whole women and roles in the church issue has been discussed at our church recently. I found this transcript of a talk by Dr N T Wright (the Bishop of Durham which counters the usual arguments of those who want women to be silent participants in the Gospel.

[DaveW]

Glen,

"Her opinion is presented as unarguable fact, yet it is not unarguable, far from it."

In what way are you different?

Many of Dr Nyland's views are shared by others hence the TNIV translation. I understand that some of her insights come from the use of non biblical texts from the same period. These give a wider view of the usage of words.

But lets look at aner.

a) Dr Nyland saysthat standard lexicons have person as part of the meaning. She references Louw and Nida, Liddell and Scott, BDAG.

b )She gives an example from a play by Aeschylus called Eumenides where the female Athena calls herself aner.

c) She says Louw and Nida translate Romans 4:8 as "happy is the person to whom the Lord does not reckon sin" (person = aner)

What exactly are you accusing Dr Nyland of in this example?

[Glenn Piper]

You have not addressed what I actually wrote.
In context Aner mainly means a male, Husband etc as listed in my comment.
The 'primary meaning' is not 'person', it is a meaning which arises in context, but I repeat it is not the main meaning.
The implication from her wording is that 'person' would be the meaning in the majority of cases, this is not true.
You have also completely ignored her error regarding 'Anthropos'. There is plainly a 'male' meaning, yet according to Nyland there is no such thing. This is deliberately misleading.
So instead of ignoring what I have actually wtitten, please engage with the actual content of my comment.

[DaveW]

Glen,

This is my blog, if I want to ignore you I will :-)

At the end of the day, wrap it up how you will, I cannot understand how complementarianism can be anything but "anti-equality-for-women" as it specifically does not grant them equality in Church leadership (and so far as I can see the culture where this is strongest has a poor record on equality in other spheres). The fact that it says that the equality is not permitted by God does not change the fact that it is not equality.

I did respond to the longer part of your comment which was about Aner. You say in context it mainly means male, but that is your interpretation and many others (NRSV, TNIV, Dr Nyland) disagree. A few more definitions are:

- Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary from 1877 "Aner ... human being"

- Samuel L Green in the Dictionary section of Handbook to the Grammar of the Greet Testament dated 1870 has "Aner...a person generally"

Both p 71 from Dr Nyland's book.

Anthropos: On p42 Dr Nyland makes it clear that this means person or human and can refer to a female or male human, a mortal. She gives examples where Anthropos means a woman. The greek word if you wanted to say a male human being is arsen (although she also points out that there are examples of this being used for women).

Dr Nyland gives exact references to standard lexicons and to Greek papyrus. You have simply said that she is wrong with no references. Therefore I find her rather more convincing, especially as other scholars working entirely independently on the TNIV and NRSV agree with her.

[Glenn Piper]

Oh I see. Nyland says it, so it must be true. Ummmmmm, I don't think so.
Actually scholars working on the NRSV had been specifically told to remove male oriented language. Accurate translation had absolutrely nothing to do with it.
Instead of treating Nyland in the way you do, go to the BADG and others and actually check, I have and she leaves so much out. It is called selective censorship.
But as you say, its your blog and if it doesn't suit you, you can always ignore it. Good philosophy, ummmmmmmmmmmm maybe not.

[DaveW]

Glen,

Have you actually read what I wrote? It is not simply Dr Nyland, but as we were discussing her book I quoted her.

If you read the NRSV preface you will see that your statement contradicts it. The intention was to address the way that "churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text. ..."

I don't have BADG, but if you check back on this blog you will see many references to scholars who agree with Dr Nyland.

Dr Nyland is a Classical Greek Scholar who has served on the Classics and Ancient History Faculty in the University of New England, Australia whose research field is Greek lexicography from Homeric to Hellenistic times. She has also translated the whole New Testament.

So that I can compare, what are your academic qualifications for saying that she does not know what she is writing about?