The Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) resolution in opposition to the most recent New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible is not surprising to many. By a more than a two-to-one margin, the convention representing a coalition of millions of conservative Baptists determined that 2011 NIV Bible published by Zondervan should not be used in churches or sold through its denomination-owned Lifeway bookstores.
Lifeway continues to sell the new translation while reviewing the resolution, company executives say. And though the message in the resolution is clear, the autonomy within the coalition of Southern Baptist churches allows congregations to act on their own with regard to this and other matters.
Still, the SBC's coercive power is significant. Though non-binding, the pressure they place on retailers and local churches to align with their values is a powerful cultural force in the cultural landscape of the United States. But it has been suggested that there is misinformation at the foundation of this negative campaign.
Though the objections by the SBC focus on the use of "gender inclusive" language, members of the translation team who worked on the new Bible suggest they are actually trying to be more "gender accurate." Many scholars, including Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation that produced the new NIV, understand the original Greek and Hebrew texts to be more gender-neutral in their original meaning.
The effort, then, in updating the English translation as they have, is to more closely reflect the intent of the original authors as the interpreters understand it.
This butts up against the agendas of some groups, like the SBC and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), that spearheaded the protest. Though there are pervasive objections by the above groups, there are particular passages they have found especially troublesome.
The CBMW takes particular issue with translations of some of Paul's letters that, in the new NIV interpretation, could leave open the possibility that the original church held women up as ministers and apostles (See 1 Timothy 2).
For many who accept gender parity as the norm in contemporary culture, debates such as this appear quaint or even irrelevant. But the tension still lingering over the value and role of women in church, as well as throughout culture, still has palpable effects.
In my most recent book, "Banned Questions About the Bible," I posed the following question to several contributors:
Aren't women treated poorly throughout the Bible? Why would any intelligent modern woman today even want to read the Bible?
The response from the authors suggested that, if we consider the way Jesus treated women, we come away with a radically different view than the one offered in many churches.
From Becky Garrison:
All throughout his ministry, Jesus debunked the 1st century Jewish tradition that treated women like property. His actions with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-26), the woman about to be stoned for adultery (John 8:1-12) and the female sinner who wanted to anoint his feet with oil (Luke 7:36-50) marked him as a man who would break every holy law on the books so that women could be viewed as equals in the Kingdom of God.
Garrison suggests that, much like our understanding of the biblical texts about the treatment of slaves, our understanding of scripture must be weighed against the cultural context of the time in which it was written. Yes, Paul says in his letter to the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:24), but a common contemporary understanding of this suggests that Paul was educating early Christians about the cultural norms of the region where they were, so that they might not distance themselves from the outset by challenging mores with female ministers and other religious leaders.
In his letter to Philemon, Paul calls for the compassionate treatment of slaves. But few, if any, today would argue that there is a moral basis for slavery (though it should be noted that the SBC was created to defend the biblical right of slave ownership). Yet somehow there are those who would still lean on the same sacred texts as justification for treating women as "less than."
Marcia Ford responds to the question from the "Banned Questions" book in this way:
Those who see the Bible as misogynistic often interpret Paul's teachings limiting the role of women as representative of all of Scripture. But they fail to realize how much responsibility women had in the early church and how much the male followers of Jesus -- including Paul -- relied on women to provide for their ministries and even correct those who misunderstood the gospel, as Priscilla did.
While individuals, interest groups, churches and denominations are within their rights to exclude certain people from particular roles based on gender, the growing disconnect between this attitude and the cultural norms of contemporary culture for a woman's value explain the growing bitterness toward organized religion in recent decades.
Despite this schism, there are those who find hope and affirmation in the works and words of Jesus, who depended upon women to support his ministry and treated them as co-equal among his followers. It was women who were reported to first witness the resurrection. From Tamar, Deborah and Bathsheba to Mary Magdalene, Lydia and Priscilla, women were, time and again, vested with the mantle of ministry. Even Paul noted that, in the context of Jesus' followers, labels delineating people by gender, ethnicity and the like no longer matter.
As the husband of an ordained female minister, I'm more saddened than angered that such arguments persist. Those who hold fast to such exclusive -- arguably oppressive -- claims based on scripture, miss an opportunity for both liberation and enrichment. But just as the biblical argument for slavery has faded over time, there is hope in the life and words found in the Gospels that this, too, shall pass.
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
Biblica | NIV Bible :: New International Version :: Official Site
Southern Baptists Reject Updated NIV Bible, Christian News
Southern Baptists 'cannot commend' - Baptist Standard
Christianity : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News - Huffington Post
It interrupts the flow of the passage which is about prophets speaking in order and controlling their spirits and to "be silent in the churches" when another one starts speaking. This bit seems to be dropped in out of the blue.
But even if Paul wrote it we must remember that he also wrote in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians that when women pray or prophesy in church they should cover their heads. So Paul was not against women speaking in church. They were to speak out, veild, the proper decorum of the time, in leading the speech in church, either speaking for the people to God (pray) or for God to the people (prophesy.)
If Paul did write that bit in chapter 14 (which I doubt) he must have meant be silent in some other way other than leading the church in prayer or preaching (prophesying.) Oh well.
I've heard this idea that it was forbidding some kind of disorderly speaking. But it's still a problem of not fitting in with the mindset of the authentic Paul of equality between men and women. In chapter 7, for example, Paul is very careful to balance every discussion about husbands and wives so it is egalitarian. But there is no balance here. It is one sided with only direction to women and they are to "talk to" their husbands, not discuss with them.
This is more like something from the Pastorals, which I think were written some fifty to seventy years after Paul died.
I know that often scribes would make notations in the margins as they copied a text, similar to the study notes in the NIV today that Gerald talks about above. I also know that later scribes often wanted to be sure they didn't leave anything out and would move these margin notes into the text. I know we have textual evidence of such things happening. I didn't know we had any evidence of this for 33b-35.
But it turns out we do. We don't have any texts with it as a marginal note, but we have texts with it dropped into the text in other places. Alternate manuscripts have it following verse 40 instead of 33a.
Also I had thought it was possible that verse 36 could fit into the surrounding text and not necessarily be part of the bit dropped in. The NRSV groups it with 33b-35 by having 33b-36 in parenthesis. The reason is that when the bit is dropped in after verse 40 it includes verse 36.
I should add I found this information from John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg in their excellent book "The First Jesus." It turns out they also agree with my conclusion and discuss it in the book.
A writer professing to try to be a follower of Jesus, who deserves to be better known.
The second tragedy is that women belong to the SBC and they buy into this.
When the scriptures tell us we were created in the image of God, it doesn't mean God has any human parts. It means we are spiritual beings. Some of the Names for God in the OT are feminine or gender-neutral. Jesus Himself famously showed his maternal nature in His lament over Jerusalem: "How often would I have gathered you under my wings as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not have it."
Although Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all masculine nouns in earthly language, how can we possibly believe anything except that the Eternal Almighty, by very nature, must be beyond gender?
Jesus resurrected with a body. He returned to heaven with that body. Stephen saw the resurrected Christ and God the Father. I realize that your traditional views are not consistent with this idea. People need to take a serious look at the Nicean Creed and understand it for what it was. It was a political requirement to create a universal belief. Constantine didn't want to support an embarrassingly splintered group of squabling religious philosophers. Trinitarian doctrine was understood to be a biblical innovation. Early church fathers prided themselves in the fact that Christianity had evolved to be such a more sophisticated thing than those rustic first century Christians understood.
Try letting go of the mysiticism - God's nature is much more personal. We are His children - not his toys or pets. Our salvation is His personal mission for blessing His family.
We're lucky to have what we have. Splitting hairs on Bible wording is not constructive as it creates artificial precision to fuzzy language.
Some get concerned to find out that God dictated to solomon the diameter and circumference of a basin. 30 cubits and 10 cubits. As the ratio of Circumference to Diameter is the definition of pi - that would sugget that God made a mistake in defining pi=3 rather than providing us the infinite precision necessary for a perfect being to speak without error. The fact that it was the amount of information needed at the time doesn't seem to be an adequate answer for them.