Her.meneutics: What the TNIV Means for Evangelical Women

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Girl Dumps God | Main | In Their Own Words: Laura Ling and Euna Lee »

September 3, 2009

What the TNIV Means for Evangelical Women

To see it go won't mean that much, actually.

Katelyn Beaty

As a blog centered on women, it seems only right for Her.meneutics to respond to Zondervan and Biblica’s major announcement that their gender-inclusive language Bible, NIVi (released only in Britain) was a mistake, and that they would no longer publish the controversial Today's New International Version (TNIV).

“Quite frankly, some of the criticism [of the NIVi] was justified, and we need to be brutally honest about the mistakes that were made,” said Keith Danby, CEO of Biblica, which owns the copyright to the NIV. “We fell short of the trust that was placed in us. We failed to make the case for revisions and we made some important errors in the way we brought the translation to publication. . . .”

Zondervan president Moe (Maureen) Girkins lamented that the TNIV “divided the evangelical Christian community,” and said the Michigan-based publishing house would begin phasing out TNIV-related products. “We’re trying to do this right and be as transparent as possible.”

Meanwhile, the Committee on Bible Translation has begun working on NIV 2011, which chairman Doug Moo said will reflect scholarly developments from the last quarter-century. He said the committee is undecided on how much gender-inclusive language the new NIV will include, and that it welcomes input at NIVBible2011.com.

As someone admittedly new to the debate surrounding TNIV — which some evangelical leaders believe abandons Scripture’s integrity in favor of political correctness — I had trouble finding much controversy in Tuesday’s announcement. The publishers focused not on the inherent errors of gender-inclusive translations but on the way they had introduced such a translation to the public. And they seem aimed more at producing a Bible that’s both accurate and accessible than condemning Bible readers who appreciate the TNIV’s use of humankind, men and women, et al. where the text is not gender-specific.

No matter, said Eugene Cho, a Seattle pastor writing for Sojourners' blog. Cho linked the disappearance of the TNIV to the “schizophrenic” landscape of evangelicalism, saying the TNIV was “immensely refreshing and encouraging” given “the increasing rise of the macho, masculine, and ultimate fighting Jesus presentation.” (My gratitude, though, for Cho’s link to Christianity Today’s April 2008 article “A Jesus for Real Men.”)

And Julie Clawson, who moderates the Emerging Women website, wrote,

[T]o 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 grew up with the NIV, and since its 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.

What troubles me in these responses is a willingness to ignore what Danby and Girkins actually said in order to show just how backward-thinking evangelicals are. Neither Cho nor Clawson mentions that NIV 2011 may feature gender-inclusive language where it is textually faithful. Neither mentions that the translation committee is welcoming input from all stripes of believers. More troublingly, both see the TNIV’s exit as an inherent strike against gender inclusivity — as if women's dignity depended on one translation committee using humans instead of man (Gen. 1:27) or mere mortals instead of man (Ps. 8:4).

Certainly, Bible translations and the way believers use them matter. To say they don’t would be to deny the power of the Word and our words. But what matters more are attitudes of the heart—in this case, attitudes toward women, whose dignity is rooted not in “winning out” over Wayne Grudem, James Dobson, John Piper, and their admirers, but in recognizing women’s status as God’s image-bearers who are wonderfully made and thus have immense worth. As long as Christian women look more to book publishers to validate them than to the God who made them, they will never be assured that they adequately “matter.”

Comments

NIV 2011 may or may not have gender inclusive language. The fact that they are abandoning a translation that does have gender inclusive language for a revision that may or may not have it, is a step backwards. That's all that Cho and Clawson are saying.

Girkin blamed the TNIV for dividing the evangelical population. They say that had errors in the way they brought the TNIV to publication. Do you really think that by presenting a gender inclusive translation in a different way will really bring the likes of Piper, Dobson and Grudem around? No. Piper and Grudem will never support any translation that is gender inclusive.

Let's be brutally honest here. Piper, Dobson, and Grudem are the ones who killed the TNIV. It had nothing to do with the presentation or the way they brought the translation to publication. It had everything to do with the fact that it was gender inclusive and Piper et al are fundamentally opposed to gender inclusive language.

I think you have completely missed the mark. The men and women raising concerns about translation issues are not looking for book publisher to "validate" them. In fact, you are most clearly showing your own bias by even writing such a statement.

The issue here is Scriptural integrity: too many people will use non-gender inclusive verses as a license to abuse, manipulate, and subjugate women in a way that God did not design. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus” Galatians 3:28, anyone? Semantics are EVERYTHING in interpretation; one word can change the entire meaning of a passage. So yes, Ms. Beaty, there is a vast difference between "human" and "man". One includes everyone; the other allows and encourages entitlement of one gender over another.

Let's be realistic: there were no "translation errors" cited prior to the TNIV's release. I somehow doubt that Zondervan translators are idiots; you don’t release a Biblical translation that is riddled with mistakes. There is too much at stake.

Notice, if you please, that "problems" with the TNIV only arose after members of the misogynistic/paternalistic sect of our faith- Dobson, Piper, etc - decided to pitch a fit over gender inclusivity. Only when these individuals proved "unable" to handle a more equitable and accurate gospel did the TNIV get pulled from the shelves, which speaks very poorly to Zondervan's supposed desire for integrity and authenticity.

It is a sad day when truth can be bought and sold, dethroned simply because it is unpopular or “controversial.” Jesus himself was controversial: I would be hard pressed to trust a gospel that was not equally as troubling and revolutionary as he was.

the quotes you cite here do not support your assertion in the first paragraph that publishers now believe those translations were mistakes. It sounds to me like you are taking WORDS they used -- "mistakes" but attributing them to something the speakers did not actually mean. THEY said mistakes were made, but YOU are saying the translations themselves are mistakes -- that is very different.

It doesn't seem to me that you really get why inclusive language is so important. I would submit that it is impossible to proclaim the gospel -- at all, to women OR men while using EXclusive language. EXclusive language fails to accuratently represent either god or HUMANKIND. So it is a pretty critical issue and yes, MUCH will be lost IF it goes by the wayside. Cho is wise to lament its passing and Grudem, Dobson (who is really out of his league not even being a biblical scholar) et al will have much to repent of for preventing people from coming to JEsus.

Roger,

I read your first paragraph carefully and realized that I had implied something that was not true. Danby said that "mistakes . . . were made" regarding the NIVi (the gender-inclusive translation released only in the U.K.), but neither he nor Girkins said the TNIV was a "mistake." I've changed the wording accordingly.

However, I will point you to Publishers' Weekly blog post (http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6618376&articleid=CA6687179), which quotes Danby as saying, regarding the gender-inclusive language in the TNIV: "We felt at the time it was the right thing to do. All that is back on the table again."

Thanks for reading,
Katelyn

Wow, there sure is a lot of slamming of Piper, Grudem, & Dobson in these comments and in the quote from Emerging Women. I would love to see one example of any of these men advocating the "subjugation of women". I have heard both Piper and Grudem consistently speak of the equality of women and men.

The fact is that they opposed the TNIV because it elevated gender-inclusive language into the text, where it did not originally exist. That doesn't mean that the meaning is not implied, which is why the ESV often footnotes references to "brothers" as "brothers and sisters". In a Bible translation, we should desire a translation that is as close as possible to the original language.

And the reference to Galatians 3:28 is off as well. It's one of my favorite verses, but the idea that in Christ we are all the same isn't there. We can be united in Christ, we are all sinners, but men and women are still different - equal value, different roles. Slaves and free are still different. I believe that the word translated "one" is used in other places in Greek writing to refer to military commanders and troops. There are definitely distinctions there, just as there are distinctions between male and female.

I have definitely been surprised by the press that the removal of the TNIV is getting, though. Maybe this will encourage people to start using a more literal translation like the ESV, NASB, or HCSB.

What a cliffhanger! Will she or won't she be Junia of the 1611 KJV; and the NKJV,ESV and TNIV, or will she be the sex-changed highly commended male apostle Junias in the NIV 2011???

The TNIV is not necessarily my favorite, but I certainly don't think it was a mistake. The inclusive language aspect of it is my favorite part. Every church in America should only be using inclusive language translations. THat is REQUIRED grammar for pretty much every public school, university, media outlet. Shouldn't we also inhabit the 21st century if we expect to communicate effectively with people FROM the 21st century? When we say "man" when we mean "people," we sound like the Amish, or the Taliban.

Regarding those who have opposed the TNIV: They may be making great contributions to the CHristian religion, but they don't remind me of Jesus at all. Islam requires all its followers to read the exact same translation in the exact same language. It certainly does promote uniformity. But I don't think God places as much value in order and uniformity as these people do. They are just building a kingdom of MAN.

What a cliffhanger!! Will she or won't she be the Junia of Romans 16:7 of the 1611 KJV, the NKJV, ESV and TNIV, or will she be the sex-changed male apostle in prison with Paul in the NIV??

I was pleased that Katelyn Beaty, in response to Roger Williams criticism, that she had made an error in the first paragraph, in which she confused the concept of mistaken translations with that of mistakes made in translations. A hopeful sign that some CT writers still have journalistic integrity and are willing to receive positive criticism from the readers.

Now I don't know how much disregard Wayne Grudem and John Piper actually have for the TNIV. For in a debate on inclusive translation between Wayne Grudem and Grant Osborne that was covered by CT, Grudem agreed that many of the inclusive translations, as found in the TNIV, were linguistically permitted by the Greek and Hebrew texts where they appeared. So, perhaps, their dislike of the TNIV may have been overstated by some.

However, that Wayne Grudem and his CBMW associates advocate "the permanent subjection of women to men," and that they fiercely oppose those who advocate the opposite viewpoint, can easily be demonstrated. Just read Grudem's EVANGELICAL FEMINISM: NEW PATHWAY TO APOSTASY, and then draw your own conclusions.

It's amazing how much people have to say when they have no idea what they're talking about. How many commenters here, and web commentators in general, know biblical Greek and have studied the scholarly work on both sides of the issue, as well as given them a fair hearing? The assumption is that those scholars who insist on translating the Scriptures accurately (i.e., according to their original sense), and, by the way, everyone who agrees with them, are chauvinistic bigots. The judgment that many people are passing on them is evidence of a diseased heart.

Matt: do you really think that in this debate only ONE side is concerned about accuracy? Is the other side saying oh lets just be cavalier about the Bible, accuracy-shmackuracy! Isn't it more "accurate" to acknowledge that BOTH sides are concerned about accuracy AND they disagree about what IS the most accurate way to translate?

Translating has been describe as both an art and a science. Understanding the "original sense" of the text is indeed important, but it's only a portion of the equation. One must also render it in the language and culture it in which it is to be read. Using archaic English to translate ancient Hebrew and Greek is not particularly helpful to modern readers.

If your church bulletin contained the announcement, "All men are invited to the potluck dinner after church" -- would it be clear to you that that meant men, women, and children -- or would you think it only meant males? Could we blame someone for being confused? These are the types of concerns those who render scripture inclusively seek to address. I think it's quite clear that they too care about accuracy.

I actually find some of the arguments for gender neutrality kinda insulting as a women. It is as though we are too stupid to be able to understand basic conventions of language use like using masculine forms to refer to people generally. Not to mention that there are so many very serious issues facing women around the world and yet this is the "womens issue" the church is choosing to fight over?

I was listening to someone preach one time, and they used the word "man" in a sentence. It actually took me about a minute before I realized--wait a minute--they were talking about men AND women. I hadn't been trying to listen with "feminist" ears--I just was not used to hearing the term used that way in any other context.

We translate the Bible so that it can be accurately understood in the language and context in which it is read. In 21st century North America, "man" is not commonly used to refer to both sexes. For accurate understanding, then, it should not be used this way in Bible translations either.

"Men" doesn't mean 'women' to anyone other than those who are attempting to make women invisible.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Discontinuing the TNIV really isn't about the language even though the Reformed extremists like Grudem, Piper, Sproul, etc. think it is; it's about sales - period. TNIV just wasn't selling enough. This new version will probably contain inclusive language since that's what our culture now uses. By the way, Grudem, Piper, et al. do think that a main teaching of Christianity is the subjection of women. Just read their writings. If they were to really accept Jesus, then they would know otherwise and would treat women as he did.

What I find most troubling is that no one is actually reading the stories here. The TNIV was a marketing mistake is what they are saying. It should have been just the NIV from the start, and that is why the 2011 NIV will be mostly TNIV.

For more clear discussion, read Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed article: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/the-tniv-express-your-ideas.html

My problem is with the assumption that gender-exclusive language is somehow more faithful to the original intent of the writers.

There's a great point here too: "men" is rarely, if ever, used to mean both men and women these days, so why should we still accept it in the Bible? Wasn't the Bible written to be accessible to the people who read it? Why else was the NT written in Greek and not Hebrew like the OT?
The opposition to gender-inclusive language reminds me of the whole "If it ain't KJV, it's wrong!" idea. It's not godlier or holier to use thou when you is more appropriate or man when person is more appropriate. It's simply a deified manmade tradition.

Wow, I am glad that I read and teach from the ESV so I don't have to deal with all this junk.

"biblical scholar",

I am well aware of the different positions of the debate. It's not as if a group of feminist extremists produced the TNIV. They're good scholars, many of whom I have high regard for. The problem I have is calling something a "translation" that does not accurately represent what the text says. It may be a paraphrase (e.g., the NLT, Amplified Bible, Message), or in the NIV's case a "paraphrastic translation," but at several points, the TNIV (as the NIV) fails to "translate" the Greek and Hebrew texts. People need to be aware of what the original texts read, and then make the cultural "translation" (e.g., from gender specificity to neutrality) on their own. Part of the confusion in the debate is that some gender neutrality is warranted, whereas other instances, which are clearly male specific, have been inappropriately neutered. There are also instances in which the TNIV translates anthropoi, "beloved ones," but there is a Greek term for "beloved," so it is a mistranslation. This problem arises b/c of the commitment to gender neutrality. To avoid this (as other translations have done), we need translations that express the original intent, but should indicate (through footnotes) when a particular masculine pronoun is intended to be gender inclusive.

Again, those who are shooting fiery arrows of judgment at complementarians need to repent. I'm dead serious. Stop the slander!

Matt: "we need translations that express the original intent, but should indicate (through footnotes) when a particular masculine pronoun is intended to be gender inclusive."

--Women are NOT a footnote to the Word of God. When the particular masculine pronoun is intended to be gender-inclusive, that inclusivity, since it's part of the original meaning, should be stated clearly in the text itself, not relegated to a footnote. Putting the inclusivity in a footnote actually corrupts the original meaning. Talk about "slander"!?

"Equal value, different roles," is no less offensive than "separate but equal." Just because the phrases include the word "equal" doesn't mean that there is anything "equal" about the designated roles/spheres/access.

As the CBMW blog recently illuminated, it's all about authority and control: "Complementarians argue that the Bible teaches hierarchy and an authority/submission structure within the Trinity, a structure that provides a model for the way gender roles should operate within the home." http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Page-3

If the Complementarians had nothing to fear from "particular masculine pronoun[s that were] intended to be gender inclusive" they wouldn't need to insist on relegating the full translation of those words to a footnote.

I'm in complete agreement with Scot McKnight's post here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/09/translation-tribalism-2.html. He's an avowed egalitarian, but his methodology is right. I recommend his post to all who are interested in exploring this issue in an informed and thoughtful way.

This magazine has become completely feminist-ized and womanized. What a waste of space.

@randplaty

If anyone killed the TNIV, I suspect that it wasn't Piper, et al, but rather Crossway. It looks like the wild success of the ESV Study Bible has Zondervan trying to bring conservative evangelicals back into its orbit. Those readers who switched to the ESV out of leeriness over the TNIV seem to be Zondervan's target here.

I could be wrong -- and I'm not suggesting that Doug Moo or the other members of the translation committee are revising the NIV for this reason -- but the retiring of the TNIV and unfreezing of the NIV seems to be as much a business decision for Zondervan as a ministry decision.

Mario, do you have issues with women?

I have to agree with Mario. Her.meneutics does feel like a blog that was made for women. Personally, I think Christianity Today should rename this blog "The Christian Man's Blog" with the unwritten implication that women are included somewhere in there.

My personal preference leans more toward the NKJV. When I read 'man', 'men', or 'him' (lowercase) in such verses as Psalm 8:4, I understand that includes my gender as well. I do not feel inferior, insulted, or like a second-class Christian because the male pronouns are used. I am secure in the knowledge that God loves ME and loves both genders! People who are petty about the verbiage are, in my mind, setting their minds on earthly things and not heavenly ones, and perhaps insecure in their relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ. It's the WORLD that says that the genders are exactly alike across the board and that one is interchangeable with the other. The WORLD sneers at differences that make each gender unique, yet equally treasured by God. If the original text says 'he', 'his', and 'him' - so be it.

I want to respond to Debra's comment above. It DOES affect your deeper/inner understanding of a passage if it is written using masculine (instead of inclusive) language, even if you are consciously aware that in the context the masculine words were intended to be female inclusive. There have been psycho-linguistic studies done that demonstrate this.

One study got half of its female participants to read a generic passage written using masculine language, and the other half of the participants to read the same passage in inclusive language. All the women understood consciously that the passage referred to both men and women (regardless of which passage they read). But the women who read the masculine-language passage identified the passage more with men and LESS with women than did the women who read the inclusive passage. The women who read the masculine passage subconsciously had a default assumption that the passage was "predominantly" about men, even while being consciously aware that the passage was intended to be truly gender-neutral.

This makes sense. If the word "man" means "male human" as well as meaning "any human" we are going to have difficult fully disconnecting the two meanings of "man" from each other. The two words are highly associated with each other, and they both came from the same root word.

When we read the word "mankind" (instead of "humankind")in a gender neutral context it is going to trigger subconscious male associations for us, whether we want it to or not, and it will not truly be gender-neutral.

Using masculine language in a gender neutral context subconsciously makes women less visible to us than men are in that context.

As for the TNIV being discontinued, I am uncomfortable and worried. I don't trust a translation team that is over 85% male (the TNIV and the NIV translation team) to value a gender inclusive translation highly enough to get it right when they do this next version of the NIV. I am expecting them to reduce the amount of inclusive language that they have used in the TNIV in order to reach a "compromise" with the TNIV critics. Because the over 85% male NIV translation team think that Dr James Dobson etc have some valid points against the use of gender inclusive language in the bible.

Christian leaders (almost all of whom are male) seem so far behind on so many areas when it comes to making things better for women in Christianity, and giving women equal opportunities (in translating the bible, being able to read a good inclusive bible translation, being able to lead/preach/teach etc). Something is wrong when my 7 year old sister knows already that "he" means "he or she" and "man" means "person", and "brothers" includes sisters too. (Sometimes). Her non-Christian 7 year old female playmates don't know this. They won't have to encounter non-inclusive language for a long time. It is sad that in the 'real world' outside our Christian circles written non-inclusive language only ever turns up in our statute laws, and in our university classes when we are required to read something that was written by some man 70 years ago. The word "mankind" is only used to take about our foremothers and forefathers (not all people are are alive today). Outside of our Christian circles, non-inclusive language is never used. Outside of religion, in our modern world, very few people would dare to use masculine non-inclusive language when they were speaking.

The two comments attributed to me above were not sent by me. The only comment I contributed to this blog was:

What a cliffhanger! Will she or won't she be Junia of the 1611 KJV; and the NKJV,ESV and TNIV, or will she be the sex-changed highly commended male apostle Junias in the NIV 2011???

The above comment has been wrongly attribed twice to two different men!

Wonderful words and poignant and a remarkable effort given away
reflects the view of her continued success.

WHEN did the Word of GOD stop being the WORD of GOD and instead the verbage of men and corporations?

Let me correct my comment above

WHEN did the Word of GOD stop being the WORD of GOD and instead the verbage of men, women and corporations!

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

What the TNIV Means for Evangelical Women

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

What the TNIV Means for Evangelical Women

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives