Bad for Women?

I recently signed up for a wonderful site called Bible Study Tools.com which has an even broader assortment of versions of the Bible than my old favorite, Bible Gateway. I'm just learning all the features but one I love is the ability to look at passages from two different versions side by side.

There's a downside to everything, I suppose. The articles I've seen there are (so far) all very conservative. One of these that really caught my attention was an article by Mary Kassian, an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

In her article 10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women she takes aim at the practice of using gender-inclusive language in the Bible.

In case you're not familiar with it, "inclusive language" means using language that isn't just male. For example, when addressing a group of people where there are men and women mingles it means saying something like "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers" or when talking about all the people in the world it means using "humanity" instead of "man."

This has been fairly common practice in my church (the United Church of Christ) for at least thirty years but has only recently made inroads into Mrs. Kassian's Southern Baptist denomination. This trend bothers her and she has listed 10 reasons that she thinks inclusive language in the Bible is bad for women.

I disagree with her. While I think that inclusive language (like any cause) can be done poorly, I think the basic idea is theologically sound, rooted in authentic Christian faith, and important for modern people. I'll try to explain why point by point.

Here are Mrs. Kassian's points (in bold) followed by my comments.

1. It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

There may be something in this point, though Mrs. Kassian doesn't develop it. I'll concede that she might be right about some positive symbolism being lost, but I believe that is overshadowed by the negative and sexist symbolism. The Bible was written in a deeply sexist culture where women were not only considered inferior but treated as property. Modern sexists use this to pretend that these attitudes are God's will in the same way that preachers in the Antebellum South used scriptures about slavery to claim that was God's will. We need to strip away the cultural baggage in scripture to discern God's truth more clearly and inclusive language can help to do that.

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points:

Mrs. Kassian says . . .

Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately . . . about Jesus

I agree that the grand sweep of the Bible is about God more than it is about gender. We should not use inclusive language in such a heavy-handed manner that the Bible seems to be a manual on gender rather than the story of God and humanity. Fortunately, nobody who wants to use inclusive language is trying to do this. The changes are subtle and don't alter the story of God or Christ one bit.

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

I'm not sure what to say in response to this. I don't see it, and Mrs. Kassian doesn't ever say how it diminishes women.

4. It is less inclusive of women:

This is an interesting point. Mrs. Kassian points out that the Hebrew word for all people, male and female, is 'adam. She says that when we say "men and women" we are excluding women from the collective whole.

While I can see her point, it would really only be true if people were talking about changing the Hebrew word. No one is doing that. The question is what the best translation of 'adam is. She seems to argue that "man" or "mankind" is the only appropriate English translation. She doesn't say why she believes this is better than a gender neutral term like "humanity."

5. It demeans women:

Mrs. Kassian says that a gender inclusive Bible assumes that women are too stupid that "man" actually means "human" and that "brothers" often means "brothers and sisters." The truth is that this doesn't make any judgment that women are stupid at all. It simply addresses the reality that there are many people who have heard from their preachers that, when the Bible says "men" it means "males only."

6. It patronizes women:

I was surprised by how sarcastic Mrs. Kassian got on this point. She says...

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo.

She says that changing the language of the Bible to avoid hurting women's feelings is wrong. She's right, if that was what was happening, it would be patronizing. But that's not what's happening; inclusive language Bibles exist to give us a more accurate understanding of God's word, free from the sexist prejudices of older generations of translators.

7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:

She rightly says that God loves men and women equally, but assumes that inclusive language is criticizing God for giving men more air time than women. The truth is that inclusive language criticized not God, but the human writers and translators of scripture who sometimes let their own prejudices overshadow God's truth.

8. It calls God's wisdom into question:

Again, there is no criticism of God, only of the wisdom of humans who bring a sexist agenda to biblical translation.

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

Mrs. Kassian says . . .

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book.

This one stunned me, not that a Muslim would be agast, but that a Christian would use this as an argument. The Muslim approach to scripture is very different from that of Christianity. Muslims seek to avoid even translating the Qur'an as much as possible and I've seen Muslim critics of Christianity say that the sheer number of versions of the Bible is proof that we are drifting further and further from the original meaning.

Actually, the opposite is true. The reason we have new translations is because we have better scholarship and better access to good ancient manuscripts. Our modern versions, and that includes gender inclusive versions, are attempts to get closer to the meaning of the originals scriptures.

10. It leads women away from truth:

Mrs. Kassian rightly feels that the scripture shoudln't be watered down or made more palatable. But she is mistaken if she thinks that is what lies behind the gender inclusive versions. As I've said, this movement seeks to strip away human prejudice and offer a more accurate and more faithful understanding of our holy scriptures. That's not to say that inclusive language Bibles are automatically good. Like any other approach it can be handled faithfully and well, or clumsily and dogmatically.

The challenge is not to accept inclusive language because we like it, or to reject it because we are blindly afraid of it. We should use it fairly and rationally to help us grow closer to God.

What About Hell?

A friend sent me Time magizine article from earlier this year. It seems that Rob Bell, the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church is making waves in Evangelical Christianity with his new book, Love Wins. He is raising the question of whether people who don't believe in Jesus are doomed to suffer for eternity in Hell, or whether the truth is different than what so many Christians expect.

Bell has been criticized for this book. Even though he doesn't come to any firm conclusions about who goes to heaven and who to Hell, he opens the door to the question. This has been called "theologically disastrous" by Conservative Evangelical radio host Albert Mohler. The objection (if I understand it correctly) is that we need the threat of Hell because people aren't going to follow Jesus just because of his goodness, mercy, wisdom, and the way he draws people into a new relationship with God.

Some Evangelical critics have called Bell a Universalist because of the book. For the record, he is not, but he does believe that the question of who is saved and who is doomed is an open one, and the most honest way to discuss this is to affirm that this is a mystery here.

I have a lot of respect for the wisdom, insights, scholarship and compassion of Rob Bell. I haven't read his book yet, but I agree with everything I've heard him say about it in articles I've read. When he says that eternal damnation for all non-Christians seems incompatable with the loving ministry of Jesus, I have to agree 100%.

I'm going to say more about Hell in my next several blogs. It's always surprised me how little the Bible has to say on the subject. Most of what we believe in Hell comes from much later Christian preaching and traditions. But more on that later. Till then, I'll just leave you with this video of Rob Bell debating this topic with < href="http://adrianwarnock.com/">Adrian Warnock a conservative Evangelical pastor from the UK.

See who you agree with.