Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Why use a gender inclusive translation

Here is Daniel Kirk on the topic, HT Joel,
    To the overall question, why require a gender-inclusive translation? My overall answer is this: to keep transforming the culture of the church until we actually believe (and therefore act like) that women and men are equal members of the body of Christ, equally addressed by the word of God, and equally empowered by the Spirit to serve in it (and therefore lead it).

    My student asked specifically about requiring the now defunct TNIV and the NRSV that was sponsored by the World Council of Churches and has not been well received in evangelical circles.

    This is a crucial question. In my estimation the reason that these gender inclusive translations have not caught on in evangelicalism is precisely because conservative churches are theologically opposed to gender equality. It is because they are guarding against the sort of transformation that I think needs to take place that they choose to preserve and further language of masculine hegemony. In resisting even gender-inclusive language for humanity, however (e.g., not allowing adelphoi to be translated “brothers and sisters,” but instead insisting on “brothers”), the English translation expresses an exclusivity that was not there in the Greek. This is a case where “more literal” is not equivalent to “more accurate.”

    The final couple of questions from my student were along the lines of who cares? and why bother? Why not use “mankind” and “man” rather than human? In addition to what I’ve outlined above, the reason I care is that women who are learning to locate themselves, as women, in the world, need to be told and have reinforced from every angle that they do not have to become male (or approximate maleness) in order to fully realize their humanness, to become who God desires them to be as restored image-bearers of Christ.

    The church has been shackled by the idea that maleness is ontologically superior to femaleness. This has ramifications for how the church thinks about Jesus and how it thinks about gender among us humans.

    With respect to Jesus: the ESV gives some hints as to the necessity for certain people to hold onto Jesus’ maleness as a sine qua non of salvation. A translation that prides itself on rendering words consistently and accurately translates ἄνθρωποι as “people” in 1 Timothy 2:4, “…desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” With this desire for all people as the set-up, however, the ESV simply cannot bring itself to say that a human is a sufficient category for a savior. No, it has to be male: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men [!, ἄνθρωποι], the man [! ἄνθρωπος] Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

    We need to embrace gender-neutral terminology for humanity so that we can start to disentangle ourselves from skewed notions about maleness and salvation. And if you think I’m just making up the idea that the maleness of Jesus is an essential part of conservative evangelical theology, then maybe you can drop a note to Paternoster Press and ask why, after printing Neil Williams’ new book The Maleness of Jesus, they canceled the contract and are refusing to distribute it.

    Of course, as soon as being male is required to represent humanity before God, then being male is required to represent God before God’s people. The continuing deafness of the evangelical world to the biblical passages that give counter-testimony to 1 Timothy 3 from the early church is another lingering effect of gender-exclusive Bible translation. So long as we think that to be truly human is to be man, and so long as we think that a man must be the mediator between God and man, women will never be able to participate as full, co-equal partners.

    So yes, I care. And as a man I think it’s more important for me to champion this cause than it is for women to champion it themselves. Because the call of the gospel isn’t to spend all our time getting worked up over our own rights, but to spend all our time getting worked up over how life can come to the other.

Thanks very much, Daniel.

5 comments:

Don said...

I agree with gender accurate translations and not with gender inaccurate ones.

J. L. Watts said...

I was pretty happy to see this come across my Facebook the other day. I read his blog, but the quote really stood out to me. Unfortunately, I didn't get the discussion I wanted.

William Watson Birch said...

Agreed wholeheartedly.

As you remember, my world was turned upside down when the TNIV was abandoned (hopefully the NIV 2011 will not disappoint!).

The NRSV is not offered by Logos as a RefTagger for blogs, which is very disappointing. I e-mailed them about this last year, but have not received a response.

It seems to me that a lot is riding on the NIV 2011 where Gender Accurate language is concerned. I've got my fingers crossed.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

I very much hope that I will be pleasantly surprised by the NIV 2011.

However, there is a big difference between using "brothers and sisters" every once in a while and being honest to the Greek.

I will be looking out for how certain key verses are translated -

Gen. 3:16
1 Tim. 2:12
Romans 16:7
Eph. 5:21 - 22 paragraph formatting and so on

Thanks for commenting. I hope that open discussion will continue among the men who do fully support women as equals.

Don said...

Yes, most of us know what verses to key in on to check for accuracy.