The world's most-popular Bible, the New International Version, will undergo its first revision in twenty-five years, modernizing the language in some sections and changing gender terms to reflect more accurately the original intent of the biblical authors, this according to an article published yesterday at msnbc.com. I received an NIV Bible as a teenager and memorized Romans and much of Philippians from this easy to understand translation of the sacred text. I now use the New American Standard, and at times, the New International Version in my expositional messages on Sunday. I recently used the English Standard Version, but laid that translation aside after reading a paper first presented at the Evangelical Theological Society revealing several weaknesses of the ESV.The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.
"We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand," said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.
Here's hoping the NIV Translation Committee, led by Dr. Douglas Moo, professor at Wheaton College, is successful in their goals.
If they are, I for one, will look forward to using the new NIV exclusively.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
114 comments:
Wade, ever considered the NET Bible?
Why do you suppose that the text in the original language that is from the oldest copies we have reads "made man in the image" or "sons of peace"?
We could speculate that it had to do with ancient cultures and that if God had it to say again today the writers would write it as "man and woman" or "people of peace".
But we can't tell the reason why it was written that way. We can only trust that the writer was as faithful to the Word of God as he could be.
I enjoy reading paraphrases and commentaries to enrich and broaden my perspective, like Clarence Jordan’s “Cotton Patch Version of the New Testament”, i.e.:
"Letter to the Christians in Washington" (Romans)
Chapter 1: about 8 to 18:
“For I am not bashful about the great story, since it is the power of God bringing new life to anyone who takes part in it, whether he be first a white man or a Negro.
It also draws back heaven’s curtain on God’s displeasure with every form of arrogance and cussedness on the part of men who choke the truth with evil.”
Publishing work considered to be paraphrases is one thing. Clarence Jordan would never say that his rendition was a translation.
In an attempt to make modern translations more effectively communicate the message, changes must be made due to language changes. But whenever we alter the writing in speculation as to the original intent and promote the end product as being something that is accurate to the original text it gets sticky.
I would read it but be hesitant to use it as my best resource for serious study.
Some links of post blog and bloglets related to NIV/TNIV/ESV from Suzanne's Bookshelf:
Requiem for the TNIV.
NRSV onlyism and other news.
What is happening to the TNIV.
A new blog about gender accuracy in the Bible.
New proposals for CBMW.
Like many others I will also be switching to the NRSV.
However, I am wondering if now that the CBMW has a victory with regard to the TNIV, they will now shift their focus of concern to other Bibles containing some measure of gender accuracy.
The Luther Bible, for example, which has no expression (in German) for the "sons of God" but only for the "children of God" should also be withdrawn from circulation. It is of even more concern that in the Luther translation, the human race was named "human" (Mensch) and was not called after "man" (Mann).
TNIV Roundup: August 2009.
Grudem calls Calvin's translation "highly suspect".
Has Grudem even read Calvin's commentary? Probably, but no one can remember everything. Still, the statement of concern against the TNIV is an abomination unto the Lord. And it is a good way for signatories to reveal what they don't know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Lamp [Rick Mansfield] > Thoughts & Predictions on the 2011 NIV (and a Requiem for the TNIV).
Today's announcement of the 2011 NIV honestly didn't surprise me; but it did sadden me a bit. I feel like the TNIV never really got a fighting chance. I realize some people sincerely opposed some of the changes in the TNIV, but at the same time, some took this to the zealot level and created a disinformation campaign. Charges that it removed masculinity with numbers counting the fewer times that man occurred is one example. Really, let's compare the ESV and the RSV and see, if on that standard, the ESV has created a less masculine Bible (by that standard, it has: man or men in the RSV--4028 hits; only 3354 hits in the ESV).
Such charges were nonsense. Nevertheless, they kept people from buying the TNIV. A few years back, I wrote about the owner of a Christian bookstore who told me that she couldn't carry the TNIV because a prominent pastor in town told her that if she carried it, he'd tell all of his congregation to boycott her store. Major chains and up to 50% of CBA stores refused to carry the TNIV. Yet, at the same time, they'd carry the NLT, the Message, the NCV and others that also had gender accurate/inclusive language. It was clearly a double standard.
What were the weaknesses? I am not a fan of the ESV because of how they handle texts which may not belong in the Bible. I have no problem with putting questionable texts in brackets. I just didn't like deleted it because some people just didn't get it.
Wade, I followed the link to the paper delivered at ETS and found nothing but a synopsis of the author's argument, which seems to boil down to nothing more than, "The ESV is too literal." And this argument comes from someone who is supportive of the TNIV. So can his dislike of the ESV be a surprise and grounds for anyone to lay aside a translation?
Can there be such a thing as too literal? I certainly don't think so, and I would be disappointed if that's the reason you "laid that translation aside."
It will always be best to have a number of translations, and with websites like Bible Gateway, Bible students have no excuse not to access more than one translation.
However, with the NIV, the TNIV, ESV, and the NASB, it is interesting how theological bias is reflected in translation decisions. Whether it be Reformed, Catholic, Progressive/Mainline, and even SBC (Holman Christian Standard Bible) the art of translation is starting to appear to be a reflection of the translation committee's theological perspective.
This is an interesting development.
When it comes to translations that we already have, the more I have looked at the HCSB the more I like it. Quit laughing.
I encourage folks to check out this review:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible.html
I am encouraged by the news of this upcoming NIV because of Douglas Moo.
I would like to see what they do in some places in Galatians. I hope they will break from the status quo on why the law was added in Gal. 3:19 [I think DBY gets it right]. Also, Galatians 2:16,20 in relation to the genitive--Christ/Son of God.
I think Moo is writing a commentary on Galatians if I'm not mistaken. This new NIV could be interesting I think.
I didn't give the full link. Here it is:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible.html
OK, I'm not sure what's going on. Here is the rest of the link after the "H":
olman_Christian_Standard_Bible.html
"When it comes to translations that we already have, the more I have looked at the HCSB the more I like it. Quit laughing. "
I am not laughing. I agree. I took a good look the Holman after reading Strauss' paper on the ESV a while back. I had not even considered it before and decided to check it out on my own.
Gregory,
I do not believe the paper is online. I only linked to the site that referenced the paper.
If someone finds it online, I will be happy to change the link.
Thanks,
Wade
Wade, I followed the link to the paper delivered at ETS and found nothing but a synopsis of the author's argument, which seems to boil down to nothing more than, "The ESV is too literal." And this argument comes from someone who is supportive of the TNIV. So can his dislike of the ESV be a surprise and grounds for anyone to lay aside a translation?
Can there be such a thing as too literal? I certainly don't think so, and I would be disappointed if that's the reason you "laid that translation aside."
Wed Sep 02, 10:56:00 AM 2009
Try this link.
http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf
And this one at BBB
http://betterbibles.com/2008/11/27/esv-by-mark-strauss-links-to-each-part/
"Can there be such a thing as too literal?"
When it come to the practical ministry of wanting people to understand the "meaning" of the text, then I believe the answer is "yes".
Again, the link I provided goes into the topic of "literal/meaning".
I have used the HCSB in both youth ministry and now in pastoral ministry [I started out with the NKJV but have switched] and have been pleased with it.
It's a good translation to help people understand the meaning fo the Bible in my opinion.
I tip my hat to the SBC for the Holman. See, I'm not always a critic :).
"Can there be such a thing as too literal?"
This reminds me of a "literal" translator had to use a few years back when hosting a non English speaking Polish couple.
The 'literal' translations went something like this: tree car hit jump
If you are wondering about a 'literal' translation, read the interlinear. The point is that a literal translation would be unreadable."Literal translation"is a non sequitur
Is there ANY bible translation that promotes homosexuality?
I adopted the ESV in divinity school (Beeson School of Divinity, Samford University) when I found it highly useful in my language courses. All M.Div. students at Beeson must take 3 semesters each of Greek and Hebrew. My Hebrew professor, Alan Ross, and another Beeson professor both served on the translation committee.
I use the ESV exclusively now in my sermons, and many of my members have adopted it as well.
I never adjusted to the NIV; its language lacked precision and, subjectively, "beauty." Then, when I began studying Hebrew, I learned of at least one occasion when the NIV translators refused to use the literal meaning of a verse and instead allowed their bias to color their resulting translation (Judges 9:13; heaven forbid the sacred text suggest that God approves of wine).
HCSB? Why would I use a translation designed by one denomination, even if it is my own? Mohler admitted one major reason Lifeway first produced the HCSB: "I think in many ways there are too many translations, and having one more translation is not necessarily a great thing. [However,] the changes in the last several months [the TNIV's release] have convinced me that in the end this is an important thing for Southern Baptists to do -- if for no other reason than that we will have a major translation we can control."
Sorry, but the SBC is not the Church, and we do not possess exclusive rights to Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, and we have no right to claim to "control" it. To ignore the input of other traditions and denomination weakens us tremendously. I see the HCSB as another indication of our exclusionist tendencies, tendencies I refuse to support.
Thy Peace,
I know that the Third Edition of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible gives nuanced study notes that seem to promote an agenda that makes room for monogomous homosexual relationships. In its notes on Sodom and Gomorrah, it says that the Lord destroyed those cities for inhospitality, not homosexuality.
For the record: I do not agree with such "notes" and realize that the NRSV, the text of the Oxford Annotated Bible, is unfairly associated with such agendas.
Gregory asked, "Can there be such a thing as too literal?" My answer is, "YES, there can be." Bible translations have to find a balance between the literal meaning of given words and a dynamic understanding of those words. There are two reasons that translations can err on the side of being too literal. One, they can be too literal because languages do not always translate smoothly; there are not always exact equivilents, and to translate literally would make some things more difficult to understand. For instance, in English, verb tenses are related to time. But in Greek, tenses are normally related to type of action--point action, continuing action, action that occurred (or are occurring or will occur) for a period then cease, etc. Consequently, a literal translation from the Greek New Testament about something that context shows happened in the past would still use verbs in the present tense, which of course is not correct English usage, and would be a distraction to a modern English reader.
Second, translations can be too literal because people speak in idioms and use regional, and even local colloquialisms. But these colloquialisms mean little or nothing if translated literally into a different language. For instance, being raised in the Deep South, I heard my mother (and others) say, "Well, I be John Brown!" To people from outside the South, or even from a later generation of Southerners, that means little or nothing. To my parent's generation, it meant, "I'm as surprized at that as I would be to suddenly discover that I was the leader of the failed 1859 slave uprising led by John Brown, who was captured at Harper's Ferry by a detatchment of Marines led by Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart!" It would be necessary to find some local idiom to put that in for a different culture for it to make sense. Of course, the Bible does not use the Southernism, "I be John Brown," but it does use local colloquialisms at places like John 2:4. The NIV translates it as, "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" The KJV translates it as, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" and the NKJV, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?", which is very similar to the HCSB's, "What has this concern of yours to do with Me, woman?" All of them are trying to give the sense of an ancient Middle Eastern idiomatic phrase, "Woman, what to you and what to me?" Another example is the use of the word "penny" in several places in the KJV of the New Testament (such as Matthew 22: 2-10, Mark 12:15, and Luke 20:24). The Greek uses the word "denarius" or its plural form, and a denarius was a small silver coin a bit larger than a dime. But to literally transliterate "denarius" would be meaningless to English people of the time, and to translate it as a "silver coin" or "a shilling" might be distracting. A denarius was the wage for a working man for a day's work in the New Testament era; in 16th and 17th Century England (and actually, into at least part of the 18th and maybe 19th centuries), a day's wages for a working man was an English penny (note that from late colonial to early federal periods into the 1850s, an American "cent" was more than twice the size of a modern cent and pure copper to boot, while an English "penny" was about twice the size of that American one-cent coin). Consequently, they used the dynamic equivilent--not the literal equivilent--of a penny for a denarius. Incidentially, that is how "d" came to be the abbreviation for a penny, which we still see with nails, i.e., a "ten penny nail" is a "10d nail."
So, yes, it is possible to be too literal in Bible translations.
John
John Alexander,
"Sorry, but the SBC is not the Church, and we do not possess exclusive rights to Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, and we have no right to claim to 'control' it. To ignore the input of other traditions and denomination weakens us tremendously. I see the HCSB as another indication of our exclusionist tendencies, tendencies I refuse to support."
How does the HCSB "text itself" indicate exclusionist tendencies?
A better question:
Who control's the ESV? NIV? NLT? NKJV?
Is the HCSB the only one that has control issues?
Seriously, this is strawman argument.
Jeff,
See my first comment. The truth is that editorial committees of different translations are handpicked. These Bibles are published and copywrited for marketing.
While I am not overly cynical about translations, they appear to have slight nuances in translation that support certain theological agendas. This includes, conservative and liberal, mainline and evangelical, Reformed and more Arminian perspectives.
Hi JEFF,
You wrote, "The one about who controls the Bible was serious."
The good news is that the Holy Spirit, who is able to help us discern the Word, is still on duty.
We were not left alone.
There is a sea of translations and commentaries, and yes, the Doctrine Wars rage, but the Holy Spirit brings light into the darkness.
Sometimes the most pitiful preacher in the world, reading over the radio, from the worst translation of Scriptures ever, CAN be used by the Holy Spirit as an instrument to help someone in need of the Word.
That is what I call 'control'. All men's positive or negative efforts aside, the Words and Actions of Christ will always touch a cord in the hearts of those who thirst.
We were not left 'alone' in the darkness.
Love, L's
Tim, I agree with you. My point is that we shouldn't critized the SBC for publishing the HCSB, when our favorite version has the same issue.
Jeff,
Point taken...
I imagine we will continue to see a flurry of translations hit the market in coming years. Blessings!
I never understood some of the issues regarding gender in the Bible.
Now, don't misunderstand me: if the original language used a word meaning male, or female, I am all in favor of using that in English.
But if the original language used a word that meant human being or person, use that.
Don't give me the hype that "English has always had the generic male." So? What's your point?
Translate it accurately and so if that means upsetting male chauvinists and women's libbers, well, let them be upset.
I do find it ironic that my HCSB in many places is more gender inclusive than my TNIV.
I never understood some of the issues regarding gender in the Bible.
Now, don't misunderstand me: if the original language used a word meaning male, or female, I am all in favor of using that in English.
But if the original language used a word that meant human being or person, use that.
Don't give me the hype that "English has always had the generic male." So? What's your point?
Translate it accurately and so if that means upsetting male chauvinists and women's libbers, well, let them be upset.
I do find it ironic that my HCSB in many places is more gender inclusive than my TNIV.
Wed Sep 02, 01:37:00 PM 2009
My sentiments exactly. Once reading the NASB to my little girl, she asked me if 'brother' included both of us. I explained but she could not understand why they did not use sister, too, if it included females.
But then, perhaps it is a good thing since such verses like the one below must notapply to us gals. :o)
Matthew 7:3
3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Just kidding, of course.
Now, don't misunderstand me: if the original language used a word meaning male, or female, I am all in favor of using that in English.
Suzanne McCarthy cites various examples where the original texts are gender neutral, but the bias of the translators comes out when the translations are twisted to accommodate their biases.
What are her sources? Many lexicons editors have a bias! This is why I don't use the newest edition of BAGD---bias!
I am weary of the bias argument---just because we have a bias doesn't mean our understanding of the text is wrong.
Jeff
Just my opinion. To me translation(s) are almost like math equations and theorems. They can be proven by logical discourse or dis-proven. In lot of ways, I find some of Suzanne's posts very refreshing in that they are almost scientific.
I will cede to others who the experts are.
Jeff,
Suzanne is more gifted than most in languages. I know other Greek scholars that look up to her and defer to her knowledge.
She is also more honest than most.
Why do I say that?
Because I've been in discussions with her and other egals and she was quick to say that a certain verse could not be used as evidence of something the other egals thought it could be used for.
Her concern for accuracy overrides her concern for egal.
So please be careful of your judgements because you make yourself not look so good to those of us who know better. We have been around a bit longer and have been able to judge her fruit, her expertise and her integrety.
Not liking her cause does not give you the right to decide she's not an expert. You just don't like her cause. So say so without trying to undermine her.
You assumed I don't like her! What is your basis for that? Just because I don't jump on board with her doesn't mean I dislike her. I still don't consider her an expert. I think she does have a bias as does everyone. Having a bias doesn't mean one is wrong or right.
Jeff
Off Topic:
The Official Google Blog > Happy 10th birthday, Blogger.
Much has changed since Blogger was released in August of 1999. Writing about Blogger's founding in his book Say Everything, Scott Rosenberg describes the effect of Blogger simply: "It cleared the obstacles from the path between brain and Web page." As the phenomenon of blogging has grown and evolved over the past ten years, so too has Blogger, adapting to a world of fast-paced communication and allowing millions to tell their stories. When Google acquired Blogger in February of 2003, about 250,000 people visited Blogger per month. Today, that number is more than 300 million.
Okay, Jeff.
Point taken.
And I appreciate your polite response.
I have come across two interesting posts from Suzanne's blog:
All in a days work .. [June 21, 2009].
Twice in one day I have received a request to respond to comments on a blog where I am not allowed to post. Here is a second situation. I was asked to comment on the thread of this post on compegal.
-----------------------------------
Lydia said...
"Twice in one day I have received a request to respond to comments on a blog where I am not allowed to post"
Why ever not?
9:17 AM
-----------------------------------
Suzanne McCarthy said...
Yes, I am blocked completely on two other blogs. But for compegal, this statement is not exact.
On complegatitarian and the BBB I am among two or possibly three people who are moderated. This typically means that my comment would appear in its time slot sometime after 10 to 20 other comments follow it. My comments at the time that I left were simply lost and no explanation for this was given to me.
I did not understand for several months that no one else was moderated. I assumed that all my comments were being held back until the conversation was over and I could not participate.
I would like to see moderated blogs advertise whether everyone is moderated, no one is moderated, or only select people are moderated. That would clarify things a little. This was not made clear to me at the time.
Essentially, in a popular thread, being moderated means the same thing as being blocked. There is little effective difference.
10:46 PM
-----------------------------------
Spark and tinder [December 10, 2008].
I often wonder what keeps me blogging. Sometimes I think it is sheer hypographia hypergraphia and other times "survivor's guilt." I have survived patriarchy - in a manner of speaking - and I agonize over others. The fact is that the influence still touches me closely in some ways, and not at all in others. But, for the sake of this blog, yes, I still have connections and concerns that I cannot leave behind.
...
In the meantime, I have been labeled one of the most fascinating bloggers and one of the most dangerous bloggers. To round it off, I received another comnent of the kind that just blows me away,
"what has impressed me the most is that you have done all these things in a non-polemical manner"
Ah ha! Little does he know. I am both spark and tinder. Hold your breath.
-----------------------------------
Christianity Today > Correcting the 'Mistakes' of TNIV and Inclusive NIV, Translators Will Revise NIV in 2011
"We fell short of the trust that was placed in us.".
Gender-inclusive inclusion?
Doug Moo, chairman of the the Committee on Bible Translation (which is the body responsible for the translation) said the committee has not yet decided how much the 2011 edition will include the gender-inclusive language that riled critics of the TNIV.
"We felt certainly at the time it was the right thing to do, that the language was moving in that direction," Moo said. "All that is back on the table as we reevaluate things this year. This has been a time over the last 15 to 20 years in which the issue of the way to handle gender in English has been very much in flux, in process, in development. And things are changing quickly and so we are going to look at all of that again as we produce the 2011 NIV.".
Also, TNIV Roundup: August 2009 - Lydia's comment.
Lydia said...
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html
This is really upsetting. The propaganda worked. Just look at the comments on this Christianity Today stream.
How could gender inclusive language be so upsetting? Am I not included in the Brethren? Why can't my daughter read Brothers and sisters in her version?
Why is that a sin?
3:31 PM
-----------------------------------
Why make it an issue?
I'm loving my Scofields Holman CSB Study Bible. WHat ya think of the Holman CSB Wade?
WOW, I guess I should have read some of the postings before I posted about my CSB. I bought it because it was a Scoffield study Bible and I've been studying more and needed something better and because I liked the way it read and the print and it was on sale at a VERY good price. Had no idea it was THE BAPTIST BIBLE!! ((Rolling eyes)). I just thought it was the infallible word of God!
whether the niv, kjv, nasb, rsv hcsb, ncv, nev, nkjv, nlt, nrsv, ylt, asv or original languages, it's worth reading.
new orleans seminary has produced a one year Bible reading plan beginning this month thru next august.
if interested, check it out here: 2009-2010 Bible Reading Schedule
Denise, I was trying to be funny, but there is a Baptist Study Bible or used to be---NKJV---I think it was the Old Criswell Bible updated.
No problem Jeff! I'm not here to cause a problem. I was just curious about it since I JUST bought it on Friday.
Bible wars??? Sounds like it to me.
I use the ESV in part I admit because the reformed world uses the ESV (Piper, professors at both SBTS and CTS, etc.) I used the NIV for many years and have no major issues with that version. I will most likely purchase the new NIV as I am a collector of Bibles both old and new. But the question arises, why did Zondervan decide to revise the NIV (for the 3rd or 4th time I might add)? Money. The ESV has become one of the quickest and best selling translations on the market. The other day I saw an ESV with Apocrypha. it is becoming all things to all people--at record speed. Crossway is cutting into the pocketbook of Zondervan and they feel it. so I submit that Zondervan's reasoning is not to better convey the original intent of the Divine's and indeed the Divine Author but rather to recapture the market. Now this is not all bad, for with more scholarship comes more understanding (usually). I give glory to God that I live in a day where I can study His Word in the Greek AND in the English through translations and versions such as the NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NLT, KJV, NKJV...and even the lesser’s like the Living, Message, RSV, Good News, JB, etc.
One's "primary" or "preaching" Bible does not make one more holy or pious in the eyes of God. One's heart toward the knowledge of the truth of the Divine is what pleases God. For our desire to be accurate according to the Spirit is the gifting of the Spirit which makes us His agents.
I am a student member of the Evangelical Theological Society and am very grateful and honored to be blessed (for only $15.00 a year) :) to be able to receive and read journal articles from JETS and other sources available to me. But there is no doubt that PUBLISHERS of the Word of God are very influential in this circle. Scholars and Theologians NEED publishing outlets else their scholarship dies in the lecture halls. There is big money in Christian Education. This is not a concern which should make us skeptical, but rather cautious and sharpen our skill of discernment.
K
"Zondervan currently has more than 200 products that are tied to the NIV and TNIV. Whatever the reaction is to the new revision, “We are not looking back,” Girkins told PW. “We are committed... we’ll publish it and be behind it 100%.”
(Source: http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6687179.html)
Interesting.
K
Been reading at Suzanne's bias blog which attempts to pervert submission and other gender issues.
She appears to take very selected quotes from people without context.
She triumphs the Liddel/Scott as the end all lexicon.
Will she admit that there is a bias in lexicon's too?
Jeff wrote:
"Been reading at Suzanne's bias blog which attempts to pervert submission and other gender issues."
I am sure she is devestated with your unbiased opinion of her. :o)
Crowder wrote:
"But there is no doubt that PUBLISHERS of the Word of God are very influential in this circle. Scholars and Theologians NEED publishing outlets else their scholarship dies in the lecture halls. There is big money in Christian Education. This is not a concern which should make us skeptical, but rather cautious and sharpen our skill of discernment."
Bingo. And it is much worse with basic Christian marketing. If more people saw inside the workings of the Christian market niche, they would stop buying all these Christian life formula books. People love forumlas, rules and roles. It is so much easier to follow a formula than cracking open the Word and Abiding in Christ.
But it is big business and quite profitable.
L's Your funny. :) I doubt Suzanne cares little what I think about her, and I am fine with it. I guess what gets me is that people consider her an expert...the question is why?
Because she supports their cause. I did an internet search and found very little to confirm that status of her.
I am not convinced by her arguments. Is she knowledgeable? Yes, she has convictions and is passionate good for her.
Do I have bias? Yes, and I don't pretend not to have one. Some people who comment pretend they don't...but they do.
Bias doesn't always mean we are wrong or right.
Here's a link to an expert page on the proper role of men and women.
http://www.cbmw.org/
Jeff, there are a lot of people in academia that don't consider John Piper or Wayne Grudem experts either in all the fields that they try to write in. I'm a complementarian and sympathetic to what Grudem and Piper are trying to do, but I don't hold a high opinion of their scholarship. I think they're sloppy.
I have a little bit of education--B.A. in Christianity from Mercer University, M.Div. and Ph.D. (OT major, NT minor) from SBTS (1982, 1986)--so I've done a little work in biblical translation, exegesis, and exposition and I fully recognize that no English translation--and I assume no Russian, German, or Swahili translation--is perfect. Perhaps the autographs were--we can ask around amongst the prophets and apostles when we get to heaven; it will be interesting to find out if they care.
Still, it's clear to me that any good English translation communicates very clearly such basic truths as those expressed in John 3:16 and the Sermon on the Mount.
"Go thou and do" while trusting God all the way would be my advice.
And Blake, that's my point! Thanks for making it for me. Just because I post link and make a claim doesn't make it so.
Jeff--if using the generic male doesn't matter, then you should support switching to the generic female. No difference.
I fall between the comps and egals. I am generally comp in lifestyle, but since I freely chose it some think that makes me egal. I am part of a church that ordains women, but fully respect and support those that understand scripture differently.
Many years ago when the fur hit the fan over the TNIV I dealt with a Baptist pastor that would quote "what is man that though art mindful of him?" as proving God was not mindful of women. That is, He does not hear our prayers or deal with us, but only with our husbands or fathers or brothers or brothers in Christ with "authority" over us.
NOT!!!!
That pastor would call anyone using or supporting the TNIV or NRSV heretic. But today he preaches from the HCSB (some gender accuracy), the CEV, the NCV, and the NLT which are also considered inclusive language Bibles. So why not the TNIV?
But again I ask: if it is no big deal to just use the masculine generic when speaking of both sexes, why not switch to the feminine for generic? If you strongly oppose that, perhaps we really really really do need gender accurate Bibles.
The question is why is it a big deal to you if you know that brothers means all Christians.
Jeff, that isn't the question to Lydia. If you understood the generic feminine to mean brothers and sisters then why would you oppose the existence of such a phrasing? Answer the question.
Blake, That was the question I asked Lydia.
Jeff, you are quibbling and trying to shift the attention.
Could you or could you not abide a Bible using the feminine for the generic?
As to why it is important, read about the Baptist preacher saying "what is man that thou art mindful of him" to mean God pays no attention to women's prayers.
Sometimes the Hebrew and Greek words that literally mean "man" mean "man," sometimes "humankind," and sometimes all the believers in a place like, say, Corinth.
Good translation takes context into account. We have no right to play fast and loose with the text but the text means what it means in its context. The problem is that sometimes understanding what it means requires some interpretation and then, well, there you go.
But for goodness' sake--in Gen 1 when it says that God created "man" it's pretty obvious that it means "humanity" so why not say so? In Genesis 2 when it says that God created a "man" it pretty clearly means "a male human being" so why not say so? In Paul's letters when he was writing to the "brethren" he was obviously including the "sistren" so why not say so?
And the preacher who said that "what is man that thou art mindful of him" meant that God didn't hear a woman's prayers was clearly at best misinformed and at worst silly--so why not say so?
We do the best we can and trust the Spirit for the rest.
"Here's a link to an expert page on the proper role of men and women.
http://www.cbmw.org/"
Yes, I especially enjoyed this Mormonish article there. This is scholarship?
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-11-No-1/Relationships-and-Roles-in-the-New-Creation
Last paragraph:
"There is so much that we cannot yet know about life in the new creation. We can be confident, though, that "God must have some very profound eternal purpose for manhood and womanhood."52 There is every reason to believe that gender-based distinction of roles will remain. The social fabric of gender-based distinctions of roles was weaved in a pattern that accords with the prelapsarian decree of the Creator. In the new creation, that fabric will not be discarded or destroyed. The stains will be removed and rips mended. The fabric will be cleaned and pressed. But the pattern established in God's "very good" creation will remain. "
These guys just cannot give it up. They are even looking forward to their their authority and preeminance over women in the new creation! It is just that now they will FINALLY be like Piper has been describing them with all his famous adjectives.
"lake, That was the question I asked Lydia.
Thu Sep 03, 03:43:00 PM 2009
I missed that one. But that has been my question all along...if it means all Christians then why use Brothers? I think of the kids whose parents never read scripture to them and explain such things. And then my 8 year old had a good point: Why not say brothers and sisters if that is what it means. Is there a reason?
Jeff, Where is your question? I looked over the comments and cannot find it. I have not found any questions from you addressed to me.
I want nothing to do with a Bible that promotes feminism and degrades the Trinity. Is that clear enough?
Thu Sep 03, 04:34:00 PM 2009
No problem. I have been reading a masculinist bible for eons. And I feel the same way about those who lessen our Lord and Savior with ESS. So, I feel your pain.
Jeff--I'm not sure if you are still trying to contact Lydia or responding to me, Linda.
I wouldn't want a Bible that promotes feminism and detracts from or denigrates the Trinity, either.
I think Michael is right on--what is wrong with a gender ACCURATE version?
Do you not understand that the same arguments you use can be used against using the masculine as generic?
If it meant he, say he. If it meant she, say she. If it meant everyone, say so.
Suppose in the original Paul said "listen up folks." To translate that as "listen up men" or "listen up ladies" would entirely change the meaning, and provide an excuse not to listen up to half the hearers!
The REAL debate is whether or not to use the generic masculine or use the generic plural in a singular manner. (Which by the way, KJV does at times.) Some argue that using the plural is less literal than the generic masculine. Others disagree, seeing neither as literal but something we somehow have to translate around.
I see it this way: either way can work. However, promoters of the generic masculine are biased unless they would be equally happy with the generic feminine. If the generic feminine seems wrong at best and heresy at worst, then what makes the generic masculine any better? If men (males) bristle at the thought of the generic feminine, surely they can understand women bristling at the generic masculine.
Which means we English speakers either change our grammar rules to allow for the singular use of generic plural pronouns or we come up with some new pronouns or we go to silly sentences with he/she and her/his, etc.
And bear in mind a gender accurate translation is not a "feminist version of the Bible" as some claim.
And also bear in mind this is an ENGLISH translation issue. If a sentence is easily translated to other languages without this issue, we have language problem to get around in order to provide the most accurate translation.
Also, if we stick to the generic masculine, we open up other issues. And example is this: is husband of one wife just a generic masculine statement? If not, how do you know that?
The real debate is what the original readers understood, not a post-modernism revision of what it means to us.
Some more links from Suzanne's blog:
Gender and translation: an introduction.
How to translate gender.
Summary of the Colorado Springs Guidelines.
The real debate is what the original readers understood, not a post-modernism revision of what it means to us.
Thu Sep 03, 05:58:00 PM 2009
Very good point. Many in the early church would have been reading the SEPTUAGINT and would have understood Gen 3:16 very differently than we do today.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers may have provided some support for Protestants who seek biblical commentaries from early Christians. They would have written commentaries prior to
Anno Domini 325
Jeff: The translation would be as the writers intended but in language better understood.
Jeff: The Bible was written for and to women don't you agree? I think it might remind some men of that fact. Lydia has some very good points that I wonder how you would address them.
I'm sorry I meant Linda had some good points.
Hi,
Um, I don't think my qualifications are necessary for this discussion. Here is Dr.Grudem himself on the Liddell Scott lexicon. But first the background.
On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read,
“Brother” (adelphos) and “brothers” (adelphoi) should not be changed to “brother(s) and sister(s).”
In The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, 2004, p. 425 – 426, Poythress and Grudem write, “Examination of further lexicological data (as indicated in chapter 12) showed that this guideline was too narrow.”
The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997,
“Brother” adelphos should not be changed to “brother or sister”; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated “brothers and sisters” where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.
What was the ‘further lexicological data’? In Poythress and Grudem’s own words,
“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”
Do Grudem and Poythress actually say that those who wrote the gender guidelines had never looked at the ‘gender terms’ in Liddell – Scott or BAGD? Do they really call Liddell – Scott (1869) new evidence?
How could they have gotten to that point in their careers without it ever crossing their mind that they should look a word up in the lexicon?
In fact, the word adelphoi was used for such famous pairs as Cleopatra and Ptolemy, and Orestes and Electra. How would we translate that into English?
I went through every one of the CSG guidelines, and found that they did not represent the Liddell Scott lexicon.
I would like to mention that this lexicon includes Greek from Homer to the Byzantine era, well after the NT. It is not considered to be biased by feminists since we can refer to the 1869 version.
Let's look at a few other details.
Adam/anthropos was used to describe the 30,000 young girls in Numbers 31 who had not touched a male. Were they really "men" or were they in fact, "human?"
Aner, when used to address as group, has routinely been translated as citizens or friends. Plato said that every citizen either male or female had obligations. So clearly it could refer to women in certain contexts.
Pateres, Moses two fathers in hebrews 11 or Moses parents. Which makes better sense?
Sons of God or children of God?
We talk about the children of Israel, the children of Abraham, Luther's Bible had only children of God. Tyndale and KJV used that expression - the children of God. In the 19th century the Revised English Bible changed it to "sons of God."
It was also in the 19th century that the Holy Spirit took on the masculine gender in English translation.
I have yet to read a criticism in the gender translation of the TNIV, that is accurate.
You can look up most of this yourself. If the Reformation was based on a Bible that only mentions the "childen of God" why would we reject that? What are we trying to achieve, the most masculinist bible in the history of the English language. I think that has recently been accomplished.
What I finally realized is that if the men who spout female submission the loudest, can't be bothered to crack open the "A" section in a lexicon, then it is about time women stopped thinking in terms of male authority.
Suzanne, There's your problem your standard is a Lexicon not the Bible.
Jeff, there's YOUR problem. Your standard is an english translation done by men to bolster their theological and political convictions and not the Bible.
Blake, What is my translation?
OBTW, My standard for knowing God via the work of the Holy Spirit is:
The Bible.
The World.
In that order.
Nice try.....So I assume you have no standard....or better what is your standard?
Suzanne McCarthy,
Very astute, perceptive and persuasive comment. Thank you for shining a helpful light on this needed conversation.
There are many definitions for various words in dictionaries, does that mean we can get and choose the ones we want to fit our agenda.
Weary of gender bending....
It seems very few people deem it a wise investment of their time to debate Suzanne on this subject.
Can't find her name on the web except in her on blogs.
Done with this subject.
Jeff, my standard is the Bible. It always has been and always will be. I recognize however that some translations into my first language (English) are further from the meaning of the original manuscripts than others in some places. My standard is not any translation then, but whatever the most accurate translation of a passage is because that would be closest to what God communicated to us. The gender translation issues are very important because it affects the reliability of particular translations making them more or less equivalent to what God communicated to us. If a Bible regularly translates something brothers when it means brothers and sisters that is a mark of taking away from the Word.
Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism should be a theological debate not a translation debate. Both sides should be able to make their cases from the same Bible translation. When it is a translation debate it shows the idolatry people have towards their preconceived notions of what it should say rather than what it does say.
Your translation appears to be one that isn't interested in what God's Word really says if your engagement here is any indication of what you think the Bible says.
Jeff:
Why must you say such things as you said to Blake--"Nice try.....So I assume you have no standard....or better what is your standard?"
Me thinks your are mighty arguementive and such statements stifle conversation. Just because someone does not believe the way you do does not make them a heretic, a liberal, you pick the word.
Jeff:
You said:
"It seems very few people deem it a wise investment of their time to debate Suzanne on this subject.
Can't find her name on the web except in her on blogs.
Done with this subject."
Another example of Jeff's inability to converse politely with other believers.
"There are many definitions for various words in dictionaries, does that mean we can get and choose the ones we want to fit our agenda. "
Folks have been doing just that for centuries. As in teaching Kephale as
'authority over'. When there are very clear words for authority other than kephale
"It seems very few people deem it a wise investment of their time to debate Suzanne on this subject. "
That is actually a big compliment to her. She is extremely well read. But from my view, most try hard to ignore her points and questions or even ban her.
Even if I do not agree with her on some things I do read her carefully because she is a serious researcher and quite a linguist!
My point would be that the translators of the TNIV hold the same position on gender language as I do. And their names can be found on the web. Unlike the other side in the gender debate, these men, (and woman) of the TNIV have decided not have a scrappy and contentious online presence. I think they are completely correct, so I am being scrappy online for them. But you simply cannot say that many scholars are not on the side of gender accuracy. Let's look at the Bibles that are now gender inclusive and present this as true accuracy.
NRSV, NLT, NLT, CEV, etc. I don't think that gender inclusion, the notion that the plural of the Greek word adelphos means "brothers and sisters" is even debatable. No one says that it doesn't mean "brothers and sisters."
Grudem admits that LSJ is the standard lexicon. He admits that it teaches that the plural of adelphos is gender inclusive, but, guess what, they forgot to look it up in the lexicon when they drafted the Colorado Springs Guidelines.
Oh, right, I forgot, Grudem doesn't need to look things up in the lexicon, because he has the Bible right in front of him. Apparently it was the RSV that he used as his standard of gender language.
Ok, I'll take the bait and bite again.
SO what---adelphos can mean brothers and sisters. However it can mean just brothers. So tell how you know what Paul meant. FINE!
But since you are an expert in Greek--You should know that doesn't mean it is always translated that way.
The translations you names are really worthless. NRSV---BIG time agenda.
My point is that you accuse others of have a bias, why not own up to your own bias.
I did find your name mentioned in a blog where you were taken to task about how you apply definitions from the lexicon.
Point being----you are right to call yourself an amatuer---those are her words not my words.
I consider L/S Lexicon worthless, but that's my opinion. I used the BAG without D.
Tom, To say that I call Blake a liberal or heretic does the same thing. I never call him any of those names.
You might not like my style that's ok. I think you are bitter man but I still respect your opinion.
Blake, My question about your standard was not meant as a slam, but was to invoke discussion.
People are entitled to their opinion about if someone is an expert or not. I found her not to be an expert--she replies to heavily on dictionary apologetics, not dealing with the syntax and other things to determine the meaning of words.
I find that Piper is a very good theologican. Others don't! That's ok, but don't expect me just to drink the kool-aid.
I consider L/S Lexicon worthless, but that's my opinion.
Be the first! :-)
Some thoughts on these discussions ...
I am truly not concerned who is an expert or not. I am more interested in the arguments and persuasion of them. One important thing to note here is Suzanne is a teacher for children in languages and helping special needs children in learning. To me that is the most important part of her qualifications. As you read some of her posts, you will see this in evidence. Suzanne is not only challenging others but showing you how to reason and apply translation principles.
So in short, the end result may or may not be that important, but the process is. For this can be learned and applied in other areas and translations.
I also understand when powers-to-be are challenged to their standing or frame of reference, everyone gets upset and takes it out on the messenger. This is a normal human reaction and has happened to many others in the realms of Science, Discovery and Logic.
Found this on the web.....
Another Greek term, anthropos, can mean either "man" or "person," depending on the context. But the NRSV often refused to translate it "man" or "men" even when that sense was clear. For example, the RSV rightly says that the Old Testament high priest was chosen "from among men"(Heb. 5:1), but the NRSV changes it to "from among mortals" -- for what purpose? No woman could be a high priest in the Old Testament.
This is what I am against. This is gender bending and just plain wrong.
I happen to notice that the ESV simply abandons all concordance with the Greek on the matter of anthropos. In 1 Tim 2, the ESV switches mid stream. At first, anthropos (plual) is translated a "people" and then singular as "man." And in 1 Cor. 15, the other way around, first as "man" and then as "humans." And in 2 Tim. 2:2 the plural of anthropos is translated as "men." There is not even the remotest chance that any reader of English could perceive when the Greek used the word for "man" aner, and when it used the word for "person/human" that is anthropos.
In the KJV and RSV, NIV, both words were equally translated as "man" or "men," and readers could interpret this as they saw fit; but in the ESV, the translators have introduced their own opinion into the matter, and decided that in one place the text refers only to men, and in another to all people. There seems to be some notion that women can still be saved, but cannot teach or lead, so these verses always translate anthropos (singular or plural) as "man, men." Ingenious actually.
Jeff, your example of gender bending is well taken. That's the kind of debate that would be preferred than debating credentials or big brush stroke attacks against lexicons and whole translations. Your constant insistence on everyone having a bias and people needing to own up to their own is a very tired postmodern critique. We get it. We all have bias. The point is not to end the debate there but to believe that an absolute truth exists and that we can meaningfully find its contents. The bias critique is a lazy cop out to not do any critical thinking or serious debate to move the discussion along to try and find a best translation. The point of the discussion is to get somewhere and that only happens when we compare our biases and truthfully examine together the validity and shortcomings they contain.
Suzanne is a good debater if nothing else because her logic is consistent and easy to follow. What complementarians don't need to be doing is general attacks on her methodology or credentials. They need to discuss the credentials of a specific translation of a passage pointing out flaws in the content and method of translation and offering a better translation with reasons why it is better. We need legitimate debate not stone throwing. Right now the only thing appearing in the blogosphere is attempted debate from the egalitarians (and some stone throwing) and stone throwing from the complementarians (and some legitimate debate).
Though published by a Southern Baptist entity (LifeWay/B&H), only 1/3 of the translators who worked on the HCSB were S. Baptists.
" So tell how you know what Paul meant. FINE! "
I am confused. Isn't that what ALL translators are attempting to do?
We forget that Scriptures were written by those who were inspired, but also who were human beings living in a period of time among those of a certain culture.
The interesting things is, that THEIR cultural and historical perspectives, once you get past the particulars, do not get in the way of the message God intended, which is transcendant to other times, and other cultures.
So why focus in on a 'particular' detail of an ancient world that is not a relevant part of THE MESSAGE for 'other times and other cultures' IF, by focusing on the detail, we then lose the impact of that message in the process?
Sometimes, the time taken to invoke the guidance of the Holy Spirit before reading a text, followed by the quiet time after, when meaning is allowed to come into focus, is worth it.
It might even be better than relying on what experts tell you that the verses mean. :)
Love, L's
Scripture interprets scripture and I believe the revised NIV is going to address that.
Suzanne, not only are your credentials impressive to me, so are your arguments. Of course being a woman, I'm probably biased. :) But are those who are objecting biased? I believe so. Suzanne, you have shown that it is not like the days when women were told they would not be educated. If anything you have shown that we can. My burden has always been that women know the scriptures as well as their minister or the best theologian. You have shown that this is indeed possible.
"So why focus in on a 'particular' detail of an ancient world that is not a relevant part of THE MESSAGE for 'other times and other cultures' IF, by focusing on the detail, we then lose the impact of that message in the process?"
L's, I completely agree with you on the one hand, and raise a question on the other. Francis Schaeffer, during his life warned against focusing on the "paticulars" at the cost of the "Big Story." But we must also (would you not agree?) understand that God chose to reveal Himself in a special way through the culture of the ancient Israelites and the first century? Take for instance the Covenant Meal. Today we eat for all sorts of reasons, for sustenance, for fellowship, to relieve cravings and addictions, etc. As believers we also "break bread" together as part of communal worship in remembrance "of Him." But what does that really mean? It is really deeper than the explicit command of the NT. A reading of the OT reveals a culture in which a promise or covenant was nearly always followed by a meal. To the ancients this was "signing on the dotted line." One can read the OT and miss this without studying the culture of the day. So today, we too observe a Covenant Meal. Many Christians today reaffirm their creeds and confession weekly through the "I believe's" and then a Covenant Meal (Holy Communion) is observed. Most believers (unaware) re-sign (affirm) their commitment to the New Covenant in the Lord Jesus without ever thinking of how they might honor this contract (or covenant more specifically). To the ancients this would have been unthinkable. So may it too be unthinkable to us.
(Gen 26:28-30; Gen 31:44-54; Ex 18:12; Ex24:11; Josh 9:12-15; 2 Sam 3:20)
-K
"You prepare a table for me in the presence of my enemies."
' then HE OPENED THEIR MINDS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES '
from the Gospel of St. Luke 24:
‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.*
41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here to eat?’
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate in their presence.
44 Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46and he said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Messiah* is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses* of these things.
49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.’
Hi KEVIN,
I pretty much agree with Schaeffer's understanding that you quoted.
As to the 'Lord's Supper' of the Baptist people, and the Eucharistic celebration of the Catholic Mass; there is this to think about:
If a person of deep faith approaches the reception of the 'Lord's Supper' with the intent of honoring Christ's Sacrifice for us, and in the hope of recieving the blessing of the Lord for seeking to obey His Will by partaking,
then, how could it be, that the Lord God will not bless the person as fully as they have need for His Gift of Love?
When all the Doctrine Wars have ceased, we will understand in heaven how each of us was cared for by Our Lord, according to our need and according to His Will.
I do not 'discount' any blessings God would send to those who obey Him in partaking of what the Baptists call 'the Lord's Supper'.
I hope people can see the beautiful teachings of the OT about the slain lamb's blood at Passover, and the manna from heaven in the desert, and the 'shewbread', and the hundreds of other references which foretell the beauty of the 'Lord's Supper' and why Christ wished for us to keep the Christ-fulfilled Covenant celebrated. These 'details' are rich with meaning and bring light in on the idea of receiving together at the Table of the Lord.
Hope you are doing well.
I imagine you love the whole experience of being immersed in the study of the Word and in the community of the seminary. I hope so.
Love and prayers, L's
"Sorry, but the SBC is not the Church, and we do not possess exclusive rights to Scripture. Scripture belongs to the Church, and we have no right to claim to 'control' it. To ignore the input of other traditions and denomination weakens us tremendously. I see the HCSB as another indication of our exclusionist tendencies, tendencies I refuse to support."
Unless I'm mistaken, the KJV was translated entirely by Anglicans, yet the Church seemed to think it was good enough to use for 400 years. Besides, over 60% of HCSB translators were not Southern Baptists. The HCSB is a great translation.
How many of the HCSB translators were not conservative evangelicals associated with the CBMW?
Jeff:
You said to me:
"You might not like my style that's ok." On this one I agree, I do not like your style.
You also said to me--" "I think you are bitter man but I still respect your opinion."
This one we will have to disagree about--I'm not bitter in the least, but great deflection on your part.
I pray there were no liberals involved, but why don't you tell us Blake---it appears you want to.
Jeff, it was a legitimate question because I don't know. No need to get snippy. But like others have expressed the Bible does not belong to one tradition and should be translated in a cooperative effort by a wide range of scholars from different traditions. I doubt "liberals" are ever involved in Bible translation since I can't imagine they give much attention to something they intend to disregard.
Liberals don't have a tradition proper because true liberalism is not accountable to anyone. In this sense only conservatives are ever a part of a tradition because only they allow themselves to be held accountable to being a "good" baptist, methodist, presbyterian, lutheran, catholic, etc. If the HCSB has only been touched by Conservative Evangelical complementarians then its authority is forfeit. One part of the Body of Christ can not ever claim to have the right translation because it takes all the parts of the Body to have any idea what the Body is actually doing.
Blake, You are probably a great guy, but your argument is hogwash and shows extreme bias toward the HCSB.
It doesn't forfeit anything. It is what it is. First all you are assuming woman pastors and the like are conservative....
Jeff, women pastors can be conservative. I've spent a lot of time in interdenominational situations and one of the things I've realized is how far to the right the SBC is theologically. There are other conservatives out there but our conservatism biases us to recognize the truly conservative theology of others in the Church. The SBC has always had trouble making honest biblical distinctions between primary, secondary and tertiary issues and our inability to make those distinctions has blinded us to how many and who our allies really are. Women in ministry has nothing to do with salvation and hope in Christ. That makes it necessarily at best a secondary issue. Liberalism is attacking primary issues. That is where the battle line is. We can't afford to stab allies in the back and attempt to hold our own hill against all the rest of Christianity and the world. Secondary and tertiary issues can be discussed and disagreed upon but should not create enemies among those who are ultimately orthodox Christians (i.e. agree on the primary issues).
"The SBC has always had trouble making honest biblical distinctions between primary, secondary and tertiary issues and our inability to make those distinctions has blinded us to how many and who our allies really are. Women in ministry has nothing to do with salvation and hope in Christ. That makes it necessarily at best a secondary issue. Liberalism is attacking primary issues."
Very good points, Blake. I agree totally. I am as about as conservative as you can get when it comes to the primary gospel. I disdain the phoney church growth movement and focus on numbers (How does one measure holiness?) and believe that the doctrine of sin, sanctification and perserverance of the saints has been completely lost to most mainstream baptists. Why? Because they are too busy grappling with secondary issues and waging a war with the culture.
But, if they can convince folks that secondary doctrinal issues are primary salvic ones, then they can easily continue the war that serves to rally followers and keep them influential. For example, Mohler and Patterson both have built their careers on merging the culture war with primary salvic doctrine. They are not going to give that up. Culture wars rally troops.
That is why Jeff can feel good about calling me a liberal or a feminist simply because I interpret a few proof texts differently than him and the masculinists on women proclaiming the Gospel to anyone reqardless of gender YET, we most likely agree on the basics of the Gospel.
It has only been recently we have been able to convince Joe that women pastors are not the same as homosexual pastors. :o)
Post a Comment