New posts on gender-inclusiveness on the blogosphere

Am I a fence-sitter? a dualist? or a hypocrite?

In a few recent posts on the blogosphere, Suzanne McCarthy blogged about the the masculine pronoun in 1 Timothy 3:4 (the word “his” . . . a man) as a heresy, saying:

There is no “his” in the Greek. There is no word at all that underlies “his” – nada, nothing, blank space. If you tell one person this, the next person still doesn’t know. The masculine pronoun has become the biggest urban legend in the Christian community for this decade, maybe this century.

    τοῦ ἰδίουοἴκουκαλῶςπροϊστάμενον,τέκναἔχονταἐνὑποταγῇμετὰπάσηςσεμνότητος:

Here we see the heresy of the masculine pronoun at work.

On a new blog, Aberration, our nameless blogger blogged about the duality of D.A. Carson who takes sides with both “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and who also uses the TNIV.  AAdmin states:

CBMW states that the TNIV is “gender-neutral” and suggest that the TNIV is “Ideologically Egalitarian“. D. A. Carson mostly sides with the CBMW in their views of 1 Timothy. What I found to be cataclysmic irony is the Bible translation Carson used for exegesis on 1 Timothy…

His post also made me think about where I stand on this issue.  Initially, I felt a feeling of disdain for duality but then I reflected upon myself.  My pulpit bible is the NRSV. My night table bible is the TNIV. And sometimes, I also refer to, and preach from, the ESV. Is this a duality too (politically-correct term for “hypocrite“)?  In a way, maybe I’ sort of like Carson who doesn’t slam either side but instead shows support for both.

Do you call that fence-sitting? If so, am I a fence-sitter?  Feel free to tell me what you think. (I won’t be offended if you think I’m a hypocrite.  I’m allowing an examination of the crevices within myself)

4 thoughts on “New posts on gender-inclusiveness on the blogosphere

  1. My struggle with the ESV comes from the fact that unlike the TNIV (ironically), it does have an ideological origin. I appreciate aspects of the translation itself, recognizing that an ideological origin does not necessarily mean a bad translation, but it does make things somewhat frustrating and awkward in that I find myself not recommending it (dis-recommending?) to those who inquire about a good translation to use.


    1. Mike, thanks for popping by New Epistles. I would have to disagree that the ESV has an ideological origin because the the ESV translation team seems to be inter-denominational. But where we (or atleast myself anyway) would get the impression that the ESV has an ideological origin would be the contributors of the ESV Study Bible, which are largely Calvinist/Reformed minded. Then there’s Dr. Grant Osbourne (on James) who is an egalitarian and Arminian and also the NT editor for the NLT.


  2. I’m glad you can see it that way AA. There are few of us in the blogosphere who embrace both. The majority of us seem to either embrace one and reject the other. A positive thing Carson said in the article was: “Both sides are trying to be true to Scripture, and to make their understandings known”. Rather than slamming one another, that’s being more real.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s