I’ll admit, I’m a part of one of those “evil” denominations that still prefers these “male-centered” translations of the Bible for liturgical use–specifically, the KJV. However, most of the people at our church are elder people. We have elder women and men at our church. And the elder women seem to be a bit more mature than a post by John Zens and Kat Huff that Scot McKnight has reblogged. The post basically attacks these translations that prefer a more masculine translation of the Bible as opposed to a more “gender inclusive” translation. It’s not that I have anything against the “gender inclusive” Bibles but when referring to linguistics and speaking in plural or general senses, a more “masculine” translation is generally the grammatically correct one. For instance, in Spanish, when referring to one’s friends, you say “mis amigos”, not “mis amigos y mi amiga” or “mis amigos y mis amigas” or “mi amigo y mis amigas”. The reason for this lumping and this generalization has nothing to do with being “male-centered” though. The reason for this lumping is for efficiency. I see no reason to be so worked up against these seemingly “male-centered” translations for the same reason I don’t see why there are hyper masculinists claiming to be Christian who are worked up about the gender inclusive translations. I don’t take a position either way. I tend to refer to things when I generalize in a more masculine sense and prefer “mankind”, “he”, “men”, etc. I just don’t feel a need to appeal to feminists when I am writing something by stating unnecessary words in my grammar. When I say “men” I am not saying that the people I refer to cannot also be women. I say “men” because it is a generalized category that represents all people. Hence why very few people are worked about these translations one way or another and I think that becoming worked up over such translations is actually a disservice to the Church.
Another significant remark that I should add is that the concept of the image of God is significantly distorted in this radical egalitarian mentality. The problem is saying that Christ’s own image includes male and female as if both share the image of God completely. This is partially true that Christ’s own image consists of both male and female (Gal. 3:28 and other passages concerning the body of Christ). However, to state both male and female share this image completely on their own does significant damage to the body of Christ and actually leads to a broken image of God where relationships are under-valued. He did not create one or the other in his (God the Trinity, not just Christ’s) image, he created them in his image. There are deep ontological differences.
So thank you John Zens, Kat Huff, and Scot McKnight (by his reposting of this worked up article), for continuing to spread hostilities within the Church.