According to a new book by Wayne Grudem with Jerry Thacker, Zondervan’s Today’s New International Version (TNIV) contains 3,686 gender-related translation inaccuracies.

In Why Is My Choice of a Bible Translation So Important?, published by The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Grudem and Thacker list every gender-related text that the TNIV changes and seek to show why the TNIV and indeed all so-called "gender-inclusive" translations cannot be trusted to accurately reflect the original texts.

"Choosing which Bible to read and trust is an important decision," the authors write. "Christians need to care enough about their own sanctification to choose a translation that conveys the very words of God."

The 109-page book provides an overview of the different approaches to biblical translation and sets forth hundreds of specific texts that are altered by tampering with the gender language of Scripture.

The authors point out that such an approach to translation can only lead along a continuum that drifts further from fidelity to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This approach means that translation techniques will have to change in direct proportion to the endless shifts in popular culture, they assert.

"The deepest danger in adopting gender-neutral policies such as those by which the TNIV was translated is that hundreds of other details that the modern culture finds offensive may be watered down in future translations," they write.

"More and more, we will have a Bible that does not accurately represent in English what the original Hebrew and Greek languages said. Rather these Bibles will represent something that the translators think will be a little more acceptable in modern culture. But then we no longer have the Word of God in all its wisdom and richness. Instead, we have the Word of God mixed with the words of man."

Why is My Choice of a Bible Translation So Important? is available through the CBMW webstore.

           Should many diverse and complex cultural forces influence the use of the English language that goes into translating the Bible?

            Essayists in the Fall edition of the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (JBMW) examine this question from numerous angles as it relates to the “gender-neutral” translation of Holy Scripture released earlier this year by Zondervan—Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

            JBMW editor Peter R. Schemm, Jr., in his journal editorial, argues that two mistakes must be avoided in the debate over  the accuracy and validity of the TNIV: Judging the motives of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), which translated the TNIV, must be avoided, and, all players in the debate must admit that no translator comes at his task with complete objectivity.

            “We offer this issue of JBMW in order to assist the reader in a charitable yet discerning critique of the TNIV,” Schemm writes.

 “It does not appear that evangelicals will soon come to agreement on the use of gendered language in Bible translations. Yet, as this debate continues, we hope to make substantive contributions that honor God’s Word, as well those with whom we disagree.”

Contributors seek to show the manifold problems that exist with the use of “gender-inclusive” language in the new translation.

In an essay co-written by Schemm and Michael E. Travers, the authors introduce readers to C.S. Lewis as an expert tutor in the importance of continuing the “conversation” between the “sons of Adam” and the “daughters of Eve,” demonstrating also that gender-specific language has dominated great literature throughout history. Such language should continue to be used today, they assert.

Russell T. Fuller contributes an article on how to choose a Bible translation and argues that Christians in the pew should reject “gender-neutral” versions such as the TNIV.

Fuller offers three criteria for choosing a translation: Choose one that is faithful to translating the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek without unnecessary interpretation, choose one that reflects a high view of Scripture, and choose one that follows the natural changes of modern idiom, but does not follow unnatural changes of political movements or agendas.

Robert L. Cole argues in his article that a gender-neutral translation of Psalm 1 obscures its connection with Psalm 2.  The man of Psalm 1 "is not any person, nor any man, but rather the all-conquering king and son of God portrayed in Psalm 2."

Other essayists include Wayne Grudem, Russell D. Moore, Vern Poythress, John Mark N. Reynolds, and Justin Taylor. This edition of JBMW, along with subscriptions to the journal, is available online through The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) at http://www.cbmw.org/journal.

VALLEY FORGE, Pa.—Egalitarians are winning the gender debate because evangelical complementarian men have largely abdicated their biblically ordained roles as head of the home and have, in practice, embraced contemporary pagan feminism, Russell D. Moore said in a presentation at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) on Nov. 17.

Moore called for a complementarian response built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of male headship in which men lead their families and churches by mirroring God the Father whom Scripture portrays as the loving, sacrificial, protective Patriarch of His people. Moore is dean of the School of Theology and senior vice president for academic administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Since many complementarians are living according to egalitarian presumptions, research has shown many conservative and evangelical households to be among the "softest" when it comes to familial harmony, relational happiness, and emotional health, Moore said.

"Evangelicals maintain headship in the sphere of ideas, but practical decisions are made in most evangelical homes through a process of negotiation, mutual submission, and consensus," Moore said. "That’s what our forefathers would have called ‘feminism’—and our foremothers, too."

Egalitarian views are carrying the day within evangelical churches and homes, Moore said, because complementarians have not sufficiently dealt with the forces that animate the feminist impulse: Western notions of consumerism and therapy.

This therapeutic and consumerist atmosphere has led evangelicals away from a view that sees Scripture as the external, objective standard of truth and has pushed them to gaze inside themselves to find ultimate truth, Moore said. Because self and not Scripture is the final authority, evangelical homes and churches—while holding complementarian views—have rejected male headship as an outmoded principle and mostly practice egalitarianism, he said.

"Complementarian churches are just as captive to the consumerist drive of American culture as egalitarians, if not more so," Moore said.

If evangelical homes and churches are to recover from the confusion wrought by egalitarianism, they must embrace a full-orbed vision of biblical patriarchy that restores the male to his divinely-ordained station as head of the home and church, he said.

Moore pointed out that the word "patriarchy" has developed negative connotations even among evangelicals in direct proportion to the rise of so-called "evangelical feminism," a movement that began in the 1970s. However, the historic Christian faith itself is built upon a thoroughly biblical vision of patriarchy, he said.

"Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God and Father of Jesus Christ," Moore said.

"We must remember that ‘evangelical’ is also a negative term in many contexts. We must allow the patriarchs and apostles themselves, not the editors of ‘Playboy’ or ‘Ms. Magazine,’ to define the grammar of our faith."

The authentic biblical patriarchy/male headship that evangelicals must rediscover is tied irreducibly to Scripture’s teaching of the fatherhood of God, Moore said. The Bible portrays God the Father as existing in covenant relationship with the Son in a way that defines the covenantal standing and inheritance of believers, he said.

The fatherhood of God is central to the gospel and male headship, when practiced biblically, offers a living picture of the redemption believers have in Christ, Moore said.

"Even the so-called ‘egalitarian proof-texts’ not only fail to demonstrate an evangelical feminist argument, they actually prove the opposite," he said. "Galatians 3:28, for example, is all about patriarchy—a Father who provides his firstborn son with a cosmic inheritance, an inheritance that is shared by all who find their identity in Christ, Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free.

"This understanding of archetypal patriarchy is grounded then in the overarching theme of all of Scripture—the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10). It does not divide God’s purposes, His role as Father from His role as Creator from His role as Savior from His role as King.

"To the contrary, the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to His headship—a headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ (Heb. 12:5-11)."

An embrace of biblical patriarchy also protects the doctrine of God from aberrations such as the impersonal deity of Protestant liberalism and the unstable "most moved mover" of open theism, he said.

A rejection of male headship—a biblical understanding of patriarchy—leads to a redefinition of divine Fatherhood and divine sovereignty, Moore said. He pointed to open theism, a view that argues God’s knowledge of the future is limited, as an example of the dangers of rejecting biblical patriarchy. Open theism is built upon a denial of the Scripture’s portrayal of God as the sovereign Head of His creation, he said.

"Open theism is not more dangerous than evangelical feminism, or even all that different," Moore said. "It is only the end result of a doctrine of God shorn of patriarchy."

Moore pointed out that a growing trend exists within evangelicalism in which "soft" complementarians seek to indict a more robust biblical complementarianism for not writing frequently against spousal abuse. This charge is a red herring, Moore said, because complementarians address the issue consistently.

This charge itself, however, reveals a tacit acceptance by evangelicals of a fallacious egalitarian charge that postulates male headship as leading to abuse, he said. Instead, Moore said a biblical view of male headship and gender roles actually protect against spousal and child abuse because it does not posit male privilege, but instead demands male responsibility.

"Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability in a family-fractured Western culture in ways that soft-bellied big-tent complementarianism never can," Moore said.

"And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families."

Moore's entire paper is available here: http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf.

VALLEY FORGE, Pa.—Does Christ submit to His church?

Luther Seminary professor Alan Padgett, argued in a paper at the 57th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that Christ submits to the church. In the question and answer session that followed his presentation, Padgett—who serves as professor of systematic theology at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minn.—asserted an even more radical idea: in the New Jerusalem the church will no longer submit itself to Christ.

Padgett used passages such as Ephesians 5:21-33 and Philippians 2:5-10 to make his case for mutual submission between Christ and the church. While he argued that it is clear that Christ serves the church, he essentially equated the notions of submission and servant leadership.

Randy Stinson, executive director of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), said Padgett’s argument is fundamentally flawed. Stinson pointed out that the Greek word in Eph. 5 used for "submit" (hypotasso) means one-way submission to authority and not two-way.

Scripture also makes clear the doctrine of Christ’s sovereign headship over the church that explodes the argument of mutual submission which egalitarians commonly make, Stinson said.

To prop up his case for mutual submission between Christ and the church, Padgett drew an even stranger conclusion in response to a question following his paper. When asked when the church will cease to submit to Christ, Padgett answered "in the eschaton" at a time when "the church will be 'knocked up a bit.'" In Christ’s eschatalogical kingdom, the church will no longer submit to Christ, he said.

Theologian Russell D. Moore, dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said Padgett’s bizarre take on mutual submission and its concomitant teaching that submission ceases in the eschaton is sub-Christian.

"Alan Padgett’s proposal is not even Christian," Moore said. "The idea that Christians will, in the eschaton, no longer submit to Christ is more than simply an unbiblical error. It is virtually pagan. In the new creation, as Paul tells us, and as John sees revealed in the Apocalypse, believers continue to serve Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father.

"Moreover, the concept that Jesus submits to his church is ridiculous. Jesus serves the church, but he serves her by leading and leads her by serving. The church does not initiate the plan of salvation or send Jesus on his mission.

"Instead, Jesus sets his face like flint toward the cross even when the foundation stones of the church, the apostles, tell him they will never allow him to be crucified. If this is where Christian egalitarianism is going with "mutual submission," then it is clearer than ever that evangelical feminism is more feminist than evangelical."

Stinson echoed Moore’s analysis, adding that Padgett’s view is further evidence that the slippery slopes of feminism and egalitarianism lead quickly toward a downward spiral away from orthodox Christianity.

"This is just one more example of what lengths egalitarians will go to in order to bolster their otherwise untenable position," Stinson said. "Unfortunately, there will no doubt be many more theological aberrations such as this coming from the egalitarian camp. But as for me and my house, we are planning to submit to Christ for all eternity."

Eleazar S. Fernandez is clearly not satisfied with Scripture’s take on man with its story of Adam, the Fall, and a cosmos enslaved by the curse of sin.

So Fernandez, associate professor of constructive theology at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, puts his professional title on full display—with the emphasis on ‘constructive’— in a recent book entitled Reimagining the Human: Theological Anthropology in Response to Systematic Evil, radically redefining both God and man.

Evangelicals will no doubt find Fernandez’s "reimagining" of man not only creative, but also worlds beyond the pale of orthodox biblical anthropology. Evangelicals will not be surprised by another attempt from the radical theological left to reconfigure both God and man according to postmodern sensibilities, a pursuit that dates to the first man and Eden.

However, what might surprise evangelicals who support the egalitarian organization Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)—a group that explicitly targets evangelicals with its ministry—is that the book is available for purchase at CBE’s "Equality Depot" online bookstore.

How does Fernandez "revolutionize" anthropology? Consider just a few of Fernandez’s theological constructions in which he argues that:

• Sin is not a violation of God’s law, but is the mistreatment of God’s creation—men, plants, and animals, with sympathies lying more tenderly with the latter two.
• There is no model—biblical or otherwise—that demonstrates what it means to be truly humn.
• Christian theology and the Bible have supported sexism, which, according to his paradigm, includes heterosexuality as well as racism and classism.
• Maleness, as seen in human terms or in Christ, is mere idolatry of genitalia. Women are imprisoned in their homes, and God’s "omni-traits" are simply the projection of maleness onto God’s essence.
• Divine moral codes become oppressive upon a given society. God as a sovereign king is nothing but a slavemaster.
• The Western economic structure is a capitalist patriarchy in which men control money and enslave women.

While the work does not deal often with God, he does not totally escape the author’s "reimagining." Fernandez proposes that God’s essence is his relationship to the cosmos. Theology is merely contextual and is not normative or universal for any society or culture. In fact, Fernandez intimates that the study of theology and biblical revelation leads, not to redemption, but to further agony.

Many of Fernandez’s assertions border on pantheism and a full embrace of nature worship—an ironic fulfillment of the latter verses of Romans 1. He equates the rape of the earth with the rape of women. Over against the assertion of Romans 8, Fernandez asserts that the creation’s "groaning" is not in expectancy of redemption, but because it has been misused and destroyed by human beings.

Stay-at-home mothers and faithful wives come in for a full broadside as Fernandez argues that a wife or mother can find no value in the home, but instead find enslavement. Even the wife of a wealthy husband who chooses to stay at home is a mere victim of abusive patriarchy, he asserts.

"Despite the high level of prestige and wealth, in cases where a wife does not have an outside job, she becomes a perennial dependent and has no identity except as someone’s wife or mother," he writes.

Further, Fernandez argues that the 21st century woman must seek a career outside the home. However, Fernandez worries over a conundrum that his view creates: The needs of a career woman to have her children watched and her house cleaned. This problem "shifts the weight of domestic chores from one group of exploited women—mothers—to another group [that includes] the babysitter, housekeeper, cleaning woman, day-care staff, teacher."