Many around the blogosphere are commenting on the recent announcement from the NIV translators that they will be scrapping the TNIV (Today's New International Version) and revising and updating the NIV (New International Version). As expected some in the Emerging Church Movement are disappointed with this decision.The reasoning, though not surprising, is rather appalling. To some in the movement, scrapping the TNIV is evidence that the Christian faith in the West (especially in America) continues to subjugate women. Their reasoning is rooted in the controversy surrounding the original publication of the TNIV.
The TNIV was introduced as a "gender accurate" translation. By this it meant that the translators were replacing some of the gender language, like "brothers," "father" "man," etc., with more gender neutral language, like "brothers and sisters," "children," "mere mortals," etc. It seemed that the translators were creating a more politically correct translation of the Bible that radically redefined the meaning of the actual text.
I have to say here that this is where I have problems with thought-for-thought and paraphrase translations. I like the NIV, though I rarely read or preach from it, but whenever we try to update the original meaning of the text (a more word-for-word translation) we run into issues like this. If we seek relevance over accuracy, we make the text say what it doesn't. At the same time, however, if we seek accuracy over clarity, then we fail to make the Bible understandable. This is inevitably the struggle with all translators in every language. The TNIV was not the first and it will not be the last to raise some of these issues.
But I want to explore the argument from the Emerging Church, primarily an article posted at the Emerging Women site. After laying out some of the issues, the article says:
I am seriously disappointed in Zondervan for making this decision. Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, says that for the new version they desire to “make sure we are putting God’s unchanging word into English people are actually using.” But honestly, how can they do that if antiquated masculine pronouns are all that are used? Children these days do not learn an English that uses male pronouns as the generic form or speech. The language the majority of Americans actually use is gender inclusive, that is just the way things are . . . Forget whether gender-inclusive language is the fair or the just way to translate the Bible, it’s practical in our day and age
The writer may have a point about how persons speak today, but that still does not deal with the issue. To translate huios as anything other than "son" or pater as anything other than "father" is simply a mistranslation of the text. Here again, I raise the issue of word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought translations. One begins with what the Bible actually says first while the other begins with how it will be conceived by the reader first. Both have their advantages.
At this point, we must ask ourselves questions like, "is there a reason why the Bible uses primarily masculine language regarding God like Father?" Why was Jesus incarnated as a man and not a woman? Such questions are taboo with Emergents and other postmodernists because they consider such questions sexist, or whatever. But honestly, I couldn't care less. Why? Because the Bible couldn't care less. To ignore these questions ignores the reason behind the language of Scripture. To make everything gender-neutral is to neuter the purpose, meaning, and interpretation of the text.
Another point should be made here. I hear no complaints from Emergents and others like them regarding the language describing Israel and the Church in the Bible in primarily feminine language. In feminine language, does the Bible not refer to Israel as a whore? Is that not the whole point of Hosea? It assumes, does it not, that only women can be considered sexually promiscuous and deviant and not men? Yet somehow this goes unnoticed. I am more appalled that because Israel is described as a woman she is whorish than the idea that God is like a Father who not only disciplines his children, but at the same time loves them.
Finally, before moving on, we must address the issue of being offended by the text. If we try to rewrite the Bible or the gospel in order to remove the parts that are offensive, then we might as well replace the entire text with the latest Dr. Phil book. The gospel is in essence an offense. The cross if foolishness (1 Corinthians 1). God condemns. God punishes. We are an abomination to God. That is the offensive part. Yet without that offense, the glory and love of God cannot be magnified. God condemns, but He also forgives. God punishes, but He also awards. We are an abomination to God, but He counts us righteous on account of Christ's death on the cross. To ignore such an offense is to to undermine the gospel. Undermine the gospel, then why bother even reading the Bible when Dr. Phil has his own TV show?
The writer goes on:
So to have the anti-female voices of Grudem, and Dobson, and Piper and their followers win out disturbs me. It is just one more example how for many Christians one of the central aspects of their faith is the subjugation of women. I know there are other accurate and appropriate Bible translations available, but none with the reach as the NIV. It is the powerhouse, it’s the translation of choice for evangelicalism. I grew up with the NIV, and since it’s publication have used the TNIV. It is those words that I know by heart, and it feels like a betrayal to have Zondervan proclaim that I as a woman matter so little.
Herein lies the subjugation part. I find it a rather stretch of the imagination to connect interpreting the original languages more literally as evidence that Christians are still sexist and seek to subjugate women. Clearly the bloggers at the site know nothing of men likes Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and others of their ilk. I have studied under some of these men and know that such an accusation could not be farther from the truth. The issue is not sexism or masculine domination, but accuracy.
It seems to me that the argument of subjugation is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue relates to how to best go about being accurate and yet relevant and clear. To err on the side of accuracy does not mean one is prejudice, hateful, bigoted, or against a certain class, gender, or race. I find these attacks made by Emergents disgraceful. Rather than deal with the issue, they would rather make inaccurate accusations and spread lies that couldn't be farther from the truth.
I oppose gender-neutral language like that found in the TNIV. Does that make me sexist? My wife doesn't think so. She would know more than anyone. I have ministered, baptized, prayed, cried, and rejoiced with both men and women and yet I read from translations that translate words like son (huios) as son, father (pater) as father. Do such translations make me sexist? I think not. Again, the connection between being against the TNIV with being sexist is a huge stretch.
In the end, the debate over translations remains important and critical. But distractions like this are unneeded. Emergents are treading dangerous water. Rather than resorting to name-calling, maybe they should rather enter the debate, disagree freely, and stop acting like children and calling those who disagree with them names that distract others from what is at stake.
Maybe its just me. Then again, I might just be contributing to the furthering of the subjugation of women.
For more:
Emerging Women - Zondervan, the TNIV, and Gender
Christianity Today - Conan on the NIV
Baptist Press - NIV to be revised in 2011; TNIV to be discontinued
USA Today - Update of popular 'NIV' Bible due in 2011
Denny Burk - TNIV Is Dead . . . Sort of
Darryl Dash - Interview with Douglas Moo on the 2011 NIV
Justin Taylor - TNIV Going Off the Market, New Version of the NIV Coming in 2011
CBMW - The "Gender-Neutral" NIV
0 comments:
Post a Comment