The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy

Friends, let's pray together before we begin.

Now this is not going to be an exposition of Scripture but an address on how Scripture is translated because my task is to speak to you about the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy. There are going to be several points at which you will want to have your Bibles at hand because I want to lead you to some verses where you can look at your Bibles to see how they're translated, and I can compare for you how that verse has been translated in some of the new, gender-neutral versions of the Bible. But I have basically ten points that I'd like to work through. That gives me about five minutes or less per point to work through, and so let's start right into the matter.

I. What is the gender-neutral Bible controversy?

That seems a logical question to begin with in an address on the gender-neutral Bible controversy. Well the controversy is simply this: In the last ten to twelve years, we have seen an explosion of English translations of the Bible that neutralize masculine, gender-specific language. That is, we have seen the appearance of a series of translations which neutralize masculine, gender specific language in their translation of the Bible in ways that obscure the original meaning. Now not all changes are bad. Let me quote to you from Wayne Grudem's paper called "What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?" He says, "The publicity brochure of the New Revised Standard Version sounds so sensible. At last we are told misleading masculine oriented language has been removed from the Bible. Jesus no longer says, ‘And I when I am lifted up from the Earth will draw all ‘men' to myself.' (That's the RSV.) But instead, ‘And I will draw all ‘people' to myself.'" (That's the New RSV.) Now here's what Grudem says about this: "This is an improvement. The word ‘men' isn't specified by the Greek text, and ‘all people' is a faithful rendering of the Greek anthropoi. Changes like this using gender neutral language without sacrificing accuracy in translation are acceptable." And so the problem is not the changes at every point; the problem is changing the masculine, gender specific language in the English translation of the Bible in ways that obscure the original meaning.

Now let me give you a couple of examples of this from two famous gender-neutral Bibles. One is from the directive of the Department of Education from the National Counsel of Churches. This is the directive that led to the retranslation of the RSV and the production of the New Revised Standard Version. And here's the directive: Masculine oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient, patriarchal culture." So there's the directive: Everywhere where you can change masculine-oriented language, it ought to be changed unless it's a historical passage in which that language is reflecting a patriarchal culture. So everywhere you can get rid of it; get rid of it.

Interestingly, the introduction to the New International Version Inclusive, which was released in Britain is worse than that directive. Listen to what is says: "It was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers." Now this is a translator's directive. "It was recognized that it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers." I wonder who determined that that was ‘appropriate' but somebody determined that that was ‘appropriate' to do.

And then from a set of internal guidelines that had been used by the Committee on Bible Translations for the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, "The patriarchalism of the ancient cultures in which the Bible books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers." And this is offered as a justification for retranslating hundreds and hundreds of verses of the Bible, indeed thousands of verses of the Bible. "The patriarchalism of the ancient cultures in which the Bible books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers." And so what are we going to do? We're going to fix that. The Lord obviously made a mistake in the original, and we're going to correct it in translation.

II. What are the arguments for why we need gender neutral translations?

So what are the arguments that are used for why we need gender neutral translations? What are the arguments for why we need gender neutral translations? The first argument is intelligibility. We need gender-neutral translations, we are told, because of intellibility. Language is changing. That's a point that I'm going to make and elaborate on in just a few moments. And because language is changing we are constantly needing updated translations. The language has changed; we can't understand the Bible. We can't understand the New International Version as it was translated in 1979, so we need a new translation in 2003, -04, or -05. And the language has changed, and now it's unacceptable to use "he" as a masculine, gender-specific pronoun, and so we need to change to something else. And, therefore, intelligibility requires that we change.

Secondly, there is another reason why some argue for the need of gender-neutral translations, and that is an ideological reason. There are many who are, very frankly, out to undermine what they consider to be an extra-biblical patriarchy which has been imposed upon Christianity and on the Bible. We get a taste of that in the quote that we heard from the Committee on Bible Translation from the NIV Inclusive Language Edition. In other words, those masculine, generic, gender-specific pronouns that populated writing in the English language for the last thousand years hide within them a bias towards male dominance. And, therefore, in order to relieve the oppression of half of the English-speaking world which is female, we need to change that masculine, gender-specific usage and make it generic and non-gender specific, gender-neutral it is sometimes called. Or "inclusive" it is sometimes called. Or "gender accurate" which is an even more politically-correct term. This has to be done. That's the second reason.

Thirdly, and I'm going to win lots of friends when I say this, what are the arguments for why we need a gender neutral translation? You'll never hear this one, but it's there: economics. We have seen our major Bible publishers bought out by secular publishing houses over the last fifteen to twenty years. And the bottom line is these secular publishing houses are in the business of selling books, even if that book happens to be the Bible. And by going to a gender-neutral translation, there is no question that many Bible marketers believe that they can increase sales by reaching new markets or at least increase sales by not offending certain markets that are out there. And so it ensures market share and, frankly, future profitability.

III. What translations are gender-neutral?

What Bible translations are these gender-neutral Bible translations that I'm talking about — or gender-accurate Bible translations or inclusive Bible translations? Well, let me give you a list of a number of them. It's not exhaustive; these are English language, and these are recent. There may be some that are out on the market that are not listed here, but here are a few.

The New Revised Standard Version is the first complete, inclusive language version in the English language of which I am aware. It appeared in 1989. This is how recent this stuff is, folks. It's only 13 or 14 years old. 1989 is the first complete, English-language, gender neutral Bible version: The New Revised Standard Version.

The New Century Version had appeared before the New Revised Standard Version, but it wasn't completed until 1991. So the New Century Version is also gender-neutral.
The Today's English Version; Second Edition (1992) is also gender-neutral.
The Contemporary English Version (1995) is also gender-neutral.
God's Word — that's a translation (1995) — is gender-neutral.
The New International Reader's Version that came out in 1995 is gender neutral.
The New International Version Inclusive Language edition which appeared in Britain in 1995 and 1996 and is still sold there is gender-neutral.
The New Living Translation which was the sort of translational upgrade of the old Living Bible is gender-neutral (1996).
And the New Living Translation Revised edition of 2004 is also gender-neutral.

IV. Which translations are gender-specific?

What are the Bible translations that are gender specific — that is, the Bible translations that retain masculine, generic pronouns? Well, obviously, the King James Version of 1611 is gender specific.

The American Standard Version of 1901 is gender-specific.
The Revised Standard Version of 1946, -52 and -71 is gender-specific. The New American Standard Bible is gender-specific in both its original (1963) and in the new revision of it which came out in 1995.
The New English Bible (1970) is gender-specific.
The Good News Bible, the Bible in today's English version, (1976) is also gender-specific.
The New King James Version is gender-specific (1982).
The New International Version (1984), the original New International Version (1984) is gender-specific. The Revised English Bible (1989) is gender-specific.
And the New International Reader's Version 1998 Edition is gender-specific.

The NIV came out with the Reader's Version of 1995. That's the version that eventually sparked the controversy that led to the framing of the Colorado Springs Guidelines when Dr. Dobson and Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress and R.C. Sproul and Al Mohler and other people met with Zondervan and the IBS folks and the publishers of the NIV to work that out. And once those Colorado Springs Guidelines were passed, they slightly revised it and produced this gender-specific version.

V. What factors impact translation?

Now before we look at the specifics of gender specific and gender-neutral versions, let me talk just a little bit about some factors that impact translation. I want to say, first of all, that language is indeed always changing. I grant that. When Christopher Wren, the architect, completed the construction of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, he was given the privilege of leading Queen Anne on a tour through that magnificent edifice. If you've ever seen it in pictures or seen it on television or been there, you know it is a marvelous piece of architecture. And he led her around the architecture, and she said not a word. And at the end of the tour, she turned to him and said three words, "Awful and artificial." And he was struck dumb with thankfulness. Now you may be saying to yourself, "She said it was ‘awful and artificial,' and he was happy about that?" Yes, because the word "awful" in 1700 meant "awesome." And the word "artificial" meant "something that had been clearly designed and crafted by a master." Language changes. I mean, he would've slapped her if it had been 2002. Language changes. I understand that language changes.

But language doesn't change as fast as some people think it changes. It's really taken us 400 years — or almost 400 years — to really need a replacement for the King James Version. And we know we need to recognize that language is changing. It often takes a long time to change. Of course, you can remember, perhaps in high school, being forced to memorize the prologue to the Canterbury Tales in the original and then having to work out in your mind what you were saying when you were saying,

1:  Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
2: The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour

And you're going, "What did I just say? I had to memorize this thing. What did I just say?" Well that's an older version of English, and you don't understand it. (When April with his showers sweet with fruit, The drought of March has pierced unto the root,
And bathed each vein with liquor that has power ) Latin and French and Italian and Spanish have changed so much. Some languages change so much that they cease to be the language that they once were. I grant that language does change. And that's important for us to remember: it's legitimate to say that from time to time we need to update language.

Secondly, however, it's very important to say that we cannot control the changes that language will undergo. Valerie Becker Mackey, who is an associate professor of linguistics at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is a past president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States, says this:

"A second basic fact of language is that we cannot consciously control the changes that languages undergo. We cannot prevent the changes. We cannot stop a change once it is underway. We cannot predict what will change and what will not. And very seldom, if ever, can we consciously cause a grammatical change to occur. The reason for this lies in the fact that historically changes have originated as mistakes in pronunciation or grammar or word usage that children or others make. These mistakes often originate because the language contains some sort of irregularity in structure that people are unconsciously trying to regularize. If enough people make the same mistake over a long enough period of time, the new creation begins to be seen as less of a mistake; it becomes more acceptable. And eventually if more educated speakers of the language begin to use it, the new form becomes an accepted part of the language. Not all such mistakes are ultimately incorporated into language, however, and so we can never tell the end result until many years — often a century or more — have gone by."

And so it's important to note that ultimately we cannot control the direction that the language goes in its change. One example of this, by the way, in English is the problem of the plural pronoun "you." Now "yous guys" up here have come up with an interesting variation on "you": "Youins" or "yous guys" or "yous" or whatever else. Now where I come from, we've come up with an interesting variation on the second person pronoun as well, and it's "ya'll." That's the plural for "you": "ya'll." It's never referred to an individual; it's always referred to a group of people. But that's our solution to a problem in the English language: there's no pronoun to express that distinct in the singular and the plural, and so we create these things. And this kind of language is still, frankly, idiomatic and a little bit slang in our culture; it hasn't been regularized although it's used by people all over the country. Who knows? Maybe a hundred years from now "ya'll" and "youins" will be in the dictionary right alongside "you."

Thirdly, the language of political correctness has a large part to play in the current debate about gender neutral Bible translations. Back to Valerie Becker Mackey again, this very famous linguist:

"With all this in mind, (she says) when we consider the question of politically correct language, we can see that there is a totally different process at work in this case. Instead of letting language change naturally as the speakers feel the need for new forms, those who are pushing political correctness are trying to impose change on language from the outside. The politically correct language movement attempts to speed up and control the direction of language change. It is a conscious attempt to mold the language into the form that certain people think it should take rather than let it take its normal course. From a theoretical, linguistic point of view, such an attempt would be doomed to failure, as we have seen, if it weren't for the fact that those who are controlling the movement have managed to give us a guilty conscience on the subject. We are being made to feel that somehow we are being insensitive to the feelings of various groups if we say the wrong thing. And so we try to follow the dictates of the language police, and this has resulted in a number of words being replaced by other more acceptable words — not through a natural process of change but because of outside pressure to do so. And for the most part these changes have occurred first among the educated-political correctness which is fueled by the feminist revolution. They want to change gender references and other terms to reflect current views and attitudes towards women, but our only agenda should be to represent God's Word as it is written, not what we wish His Word had said nor what we think His Word would have said if it had been written today. Working with a translation that reflects as closely as possible the meaning of the original, Biblical scholars and others who want to interpret the Bible and to understand its meaning in today's setting are free to do so. But if the translation is done in such a way that the original meaning is obscured or changed, all Christians are deprived of the opportunity to read God's Word as it was given and then to interpret it according to our own beliefs. In essence, through the politically correct movement, we are being told what to believe before we can say it ourselves."

The fourth point I want to make, linguistically, is this: small changes matter. Small changes matter. I mean, you say, "What's the big deal? Instead of saying ‘him,' you say ‘they.'" That's becoming more common today to use a plural pronoun instead of a masculine singular pronoun to indicate a generic. What's the big deal about that? Well linguists are in agreement that any change in grammar or meaning, no matter how slight, always changes meaning. Think of the following circumstance: Eight-year-old twins, Susie and Billy, are in the kitchen. Mother comes in, finds milk spilled all over the table, and she says, "Who spilled the milk?" Susie replies, "Billy did." Then Mother says one of the following: 1) To Billy: "You wipe that up right now." 2) To Susie, "He needs to wipe that up right now. 3) "Whoever spilled this needs to wipe it up right now." 4) "We need to wipe it up right now." 5) "It needs to be wiped up right now." Or 6) "Wiping it up right now would be a good thing." Now all of those sentences express essentially the same desire, but one of them in conjunction with the staring eyes of a mother which have supernatural powers, "You wipe that up right now," will be far more powerfully effective than any of those other sentences. How you say what you say does matter. "The medium is the message," Marshall McLuhan once said.

VI. What are the best books on this topic?

Well on the progender-neutral, or the proinclusive language side — the wrong view — there's Mark Strauss's, Distorting Scripture? published two or three years ago by InterVarsity Press. And there is D.A. Carson's book, The Inclusive Language Debate, published two or three years ago by Baker. I want to say that I have the highest regard for Don, and he knows more about linguistics than I will ever know, but he's wrong on this. He's just wrong.

What about the progender-specific side — the right view? By the way, J.I. Packer says the best book on this subject, the one book you need to read, is the one I'm about to tell you about. It's by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, and it's called, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, published in 2000 by Broadman and Holman. Now if you don't have time to read about 365 pages of tightly-reasoned text on the gender-neutral Bible controversy, I'll give you another alternative which will mean shorter reading, but it's very accurate. And it is the Journal on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for fall 2002. Now you say, "I don't subscribe to the Journal on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." Well first let me say as the chairman of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, you should. Secondly, if you say, "Well I don't have the money to do that." Well then I would say: Go to the CBM website, www.cbmw.org, and you can get the whole thing on-line in PDF or HTML and download it yourself for the cost of the paper you print it out on. That website, www.cbmw.org, has tons of material on this issue; but that journal, the JBMW, the fall 2002 issue, was totally devoted to the issue of gender-inclusive translations, especially the TNIV, the Today's NIV, which, by the way, is perhaps in our circles, the most famous gender-inclusive version. I didn't list it, did I, when I was going through the list? I told you about the NIVI, but I didn't tell you about the TNIV. It's been published in the New Testament, but the Old Testament is still in process and is due out in a couple of years. So it's not out as a full Bible yet. But, at any rate, the JBMW; 7.2, fall 2002, the whole issue, is devoted to this discussion, and it's very readable. There are a number of short articles, two or three page articles, which will sum up for you all of this debate. Those are books and references and resources on this topic that will help you.

VII. Problems arising from the practice of gender-neutral translation.

Let me give you some examples of problems that are created in the TNIV, the Today's New International Version, from this kind of practice of gender neutral translation. There are three examples that I'm going to give you: 1) the way they translate "father" and "son," 2) the way they treat third person masculine pronouns, and 3) the way they translate "man"/ "Son of Man."

Before I do that let me say, not all changes are bad. There are permissible changes in translating gender-related terms. If you replace "man" and "men" when the original includes "women," that's acceptable. Replacing "all men" with "everyone" when you're translating the Greek word pas. That's acceptable when you replace "men" with "people" when there's no masculine term in the original text: that's perfectly acceptable

If you replace "men" with "people" after the Greek anthropoi, which is the generic — and especially in the plural. That's appropriate. Anthropoi. Replacing "a man" with "a person" while translating the Greek anthropoi in the singular in certain cases is appropriate.

Replacing "a man" with "anyone" when translating the Greek tis is acceptable.

Replacing "he who" with "the one who" or "the person who" or replacing "sons" with "children" when translating certain Hebrew terms banim is acceptable.

That having been said, let me give you an example of some unacceptable changes. First, let's look at changes affecting the singular "father" the Greek pater, and the singular "son" Greek huios. Turn in your Bibles to Hebrews 12. I'll give you an example. In this version, Hebrews 12:7 reads, "It is for discipline that you endure. God deals with you as with sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?" Even the New International Version in 1984 translated that: "Endure hardship as discipline. God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" But now the TNIV — this new, inclusive language rendering of the New International Version which came out in 2002 — says, "What children are not disciplined by their parents?" Now in this verse, the TNIV mistranslates the Greek terms, huios (son) and pater (father), which in their singular forms don't mean "child" or "parent" and surely not "children" and "parents." But it also obscures the parallel with God as Father in this passage. Is it true that children are disciplined by both their parents? Yes. Can that application be made from that passage? Yes. Is that what this passage says? No. Does the proper translation of this passage keep a preacher from being able to make that application? No. Does this mistranslation of this passage keep you, as an only-English speaking Bible reader, from being able to know that? Yes. That's why gender inclusive translations are a bad idea because you don't know what's behind the language. It keeps you from being able to know what's there. The TNIV claims on their website that pater in the singular means "parent." I don't know any place where that's the case in the Greek language. But let me say, if that's the case, and they've translated Hebrews 12:7 that way in 2002, then get ready for "our parent in heaven" in the 2010 revision of the TNIV.

Secondly, changes affecting "he," "him," and "his." Those are Greek third person masculine singular pronouns. Look at 1 Corinthians 14:28. Here's how the original NIV translated it: "If there's no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." That's a pretty good translation. Here's the new TNIV, same verse, 1 Corinthians 14:28: "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to God when alone." Now, you see, all of that juggling, all of that tightrope walking, was to keep from saying, "to himself" because that supposedly is going to exclude 50% of the audience who is not a "himself." But, unfortunately, the passage doesn't say anything about the speaker being alone. In fact, it's in the context of gathered worship. It's talking about him not shouting out while everything else is going along, but he's there in gathered worship. And so it messes up what the passage means. It's an overly-restrictive and an incorrect explanation of the passage.

Let me give you another example of this. Turn to Revelation 22:18. Revelation 22:18: this is a pretty important verse. "If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues written in this book." This is the verse about adding to the word of God. "If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues." Here's what the new TNIV does with that: "If anyone of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues." Now the problem with that is, first of all, in order to avoid saying "him" in that verse, "anyone" is changed to "anyone of you." And so "anyone of you" singles out one amongst a group, so the "you" there in that phrase functions as a plural. The warning is to a specific person, "anyone of you." "You" there is defined as plural. And then look what it says: "God will add to"...not "anyone of you the plagues"...but "to you the plagues." So that says if one person in the group takes away, God will add the plagues to the whole group. It changes the meaning of the passage. "You," the whole group, will receive the plagues. That's not what the passage is saying. Notice here that the TNIV changes the meaning of the very verse that tells us never to change the meaning of Scripture.

Turn with me back to Hebrews 2 verse 6. The old NIV says, "What is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?" The new TNIV says, "What are mere mortals that You are mindful of them, human beings that You care for them?" All that juggling is to avoid saying "man," "son of man," and "him." So for "man" we get "mere mortals"; for "son of man" we get "human beings"; and for "him" we get "them." Now in the course of doing that, the new TNIV obscures the connection of this verse with Jesus who is the Son of Man which is part of the play on words which the author of Hebrews is working on through this section of Hebrews 2. And it mistranslates the singular Greek word huios (son) and anthropos (man).

But look at the next section, Hebrews 2:17. This is even more serious: the original NIV renders "For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way in order that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest." What does the new TNIV do with this verse? "For this reason He had to be made like His brothers and sisters in every way in order that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest." Friends, did Jesus have to become like His sisters in every way in order to become a high priest in the service of God? Don't go there. Even if this verse doesn't give us an androgynous or transsexual Jesus, it surely leaves the door wide open for misunderstanding — especially in our culture. And it almost invites a misunderstanding. Meditate on that phrase, "in every way," and see if you don't agree. Those are some examples

VIII. Does this matter?

Does this matter? Well I hope the answer is "yes." Does it matter? Yes. Let me give you at least five reasons why it matters. First, it matters because of our doctrine of Scripture. I believe that this kind of translation undermines our doctrine of Scripture. You see, if you allow a suspicion of classical, English renderings and translations with regard to the use of generic, masculine language to lead you to retranslate English Bibles; then that same suspicion of generic, masculine language will inevitably lead you to a suspicion of the original Greek and Hebrew and thus undermine your confidence in the doctrine of Scripture.

Secondly, it hurts our doctrine of God. We lose the glory of God's Fatherhood when He ceases to be our Father and becomes our parent. One translator of the TNIV said in a public letter that "They had to retranslate father's house to parent's house because in Canada most of the population's families are divorced. and father's house means the place that you go on the weekend when you're not with your mom." But, my friend, precisely that cultural situation gives the bible-believing community the opportunity to say, "Your Heavenly Father is not like that, and His house is not like that."

You see, there are two ways that you can learn — positively and negatively — from the situation of your own family life. All of us have had situations where we've ministered perhaps to young women who have faced grossly abusive situations in their own homes from their own fathers. Do we jettison the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God because of that abuse? Or do we say to them that "your Heavenly Father is nothing like your earthly father, and He is infinitely glorious in His love and His compassion and His tenderness towards you"? These occasions provide the opportunity for the explanation and the exposition of the fatherhood of God.

Fourthly, male/female role relationships in the church are confused when we use this kind of gender-inclusive language. Turn to Acts 20:30. Paul there says to the elders in Exodus, "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth." The word "men" translates the Greek word aner; it denotes male human beings. But the New Revised Standard Version and the NIVI and, I think, the new TNIV all omit the male component and say something like, "Some will arise and distort truth from among you...from your own number some will arise." Well this is very significant. It's very significant in the debate about whether women can serve as elders. And gender-neutral translations suppress that very significant information pertaining to that debate and keep you from being able to follow up on it.

Fifth and finally, the disastrous consequence of allowing people to hijack the language. This is another reason why this debate matters because of the disastrous consequence of allowing people to hijack the language. George Orwell in his famous novel, 1984, imagines a government functionary who is rewriting a dictionary explaining what is really happening when he revises English into the newspeak that is required by Big Brother. He says this: "You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words, but not a bit of it. We're destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them — every day. We're cutting language down to the bone. It's a beautiful thing: the destruction of words. Of course, the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. Don't you see that the whole reign of newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thought-crime literally impossible because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."

IX. How do I know I have a gender inclusive Bible translation in my hands?

Refer to the versions which I mentioned earlier in the passage. Go to the CBMW website. Get the verses you need to check. Pick up your New American Standard Version; check those verses against it in the translation you're testing. Or, short hand, go to John 14:21 and 23 and Matthew 16:24-26, and see what the translation says.

X. What should you do?

Tenth and finally, what should you do? What should you do? First, pursue a biblical view of male/female role relationships. Second, use a reliable translation; not a gender inclusive translation. Thirdly, talk with your pastors and elders about this issue. Fourthly, subscribe to the Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. And fifth, pray.

Thank you, friends.