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 someevangelicalleadersbelieve 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.”
