Anda di halaman 1dari 22

Religion in the Public Schools

General Rule: Public schools may not teach religion, although teaching about religion in a secular context is permitted. 25 The Bible may be taught in a school, but only for its historical, cultural or literary value and never in a devotional, celebratory or doctrinal manner, or in such a way that encourages acceptance of the Bible as a religious document. What distinguishes "teaching religion" from "teaching about religion"? Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations. These programs should instill understanding, tolerance and respect for a pluralistic society. When discussing religion in this context, religion must be discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner. Such programs should educate students about the principle of religious liberty as one of the fundamental elements of freedom and democracy in the United States. "Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination and practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal. Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief. A teacher must not interject personal views or advocate those of certain students. Teachers must be extremely sensitive to respect, and not interfere with, a student's religious beliefs and practices. Students must not be encouraged to accept or conform to specific religious beliefs or practices. A program intended to teach religion, disguised as teaching about religion, will be found unconstitutional. 26 In sum, there is a critical difference between teaching religion and teaching about religion. While it is constitutionally permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is unconstitutional for public schools and their employees to observe religious holidays, promote religious belief, or practice religion. School officials and parents must be extremely careful not to cross the line between "the laudable educational goal of promoting a student's knowledge of and appreciation for this nation's cultural and religious diversity, and the impermissible endorsement of religion forbidden by the Establishment Clause." 27 May schools teach the Bible as literature? The Bible may be studied as literature, but not as religious doctrine. The lesson must be secular, religiously neutral and objective. 28 Classes on the Bible as literature should be optional.29 The Anti-Defamation League strongly suggests that such classes be taught by school personnel who have some training in Establishment Clause issues. May schools teach secular values which coincide with religious values?Schools may indeed and should teach secular values such as honesty, respect for others, courage, kindness and good citizenship. These values, however, must not be taught as religious tenets. The fact that most religions also teach these values does not change the lawfulness and desirability of teaching them. It is also appropriate for school officials to instill in students such values as "independent thought, tolerance of diverse views, self-respect, maturity, self-reliance and logical decisionmaking." 30 What are some concerns that arise regarding "teaching about religion" in public schools? Although it is legal to teach about religion in public schools in a neutral and secular manner, school administrators, teachers and parents should be cognizant of the inherent dangers of bringing religion into the classroom. 31 Public school teachers should carefully consider the following factors:

Students are extremely susceptible to peer and public pressure and coercion. This concern is heightened, of course, at the elementary school level. Any discussion of religion in the classroom should be sensitive to the beliefs of the different students in the class. No student should be made to feel that his or her personal beliefs or practices are being questioned, infringed upon or compromised. A student should never feel ostracized on the basis of his or her religious beliefs.

If religion is discussed, great care must be taken to discuss minority as well as majority religions. The inclusion of only the major religions in a classroom discussion does not reflect the actual religious diversity within our society and the world. Cursory discussions will subtly denigrate

the validity of minority religious beliefs held by some individuals, regardless of whether adherents to minority beliefs are represented in the class. If they are present, these students may feel excluded or coerced.

Students should not be put on the spot to explain their religious (or cultural) traditions. The student may feel uncomfortable and may not have enough information to be accurate. Moreover, by asking a student to be spokesperson for his or her religion, the teacher is sending a signal that the religion is too "exotic" for the teacher to understand. Finally, in certain cases, the teacher may be opening the door for proselytizing activity by the student, which must be avoided.

Every effort should be made to obtain accurate information about different religions. Special training may be required to prepare teachers to discuss religion in an appropriate manner.

Discussion of religion in the classroom may alienate those students who are being raised with no religious faith. While there is an obligation for even these students to learn what is being taught as part of a secular educational program, it is very important that teachers avoid discussions that seem to endorse religious belief over non-religious belief. Otherwise, such students may feel pressure to conform to the majority, or be made to feel inferior about their own upbringing.

Discussion of religion in the classroom may alienate those who are being raised with orthodox religious faiths. It is equally important that teachers not appear to disapprove of faith, thereby alienating those who are raised with faith.

If students object on religious grounds to portions of a textbook, may they be excused from studying the material? No. Public schools can require that all students use a prescribed set of textbooks if the books neither promote nor oppose any religious practice. The students must only be required to read and discuss the material and may not be required to perform or refrain from performing any act forbidden or mandated by their religion. Mere exposure to ideas that one finds objectionable on religious grounds does not rise to the level of a free exercise claim that compelled activity would. 32 Aren't these rules just promoting a "secular religion"? The state may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense that the state may not affirmatively oppose or show hostility to religion, thereby preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. 33 That being said, the prohibition on teaching religion and religious activity ensures that the government does not advance or promote religious belief over non-religious belief or a particular religious belief over other religious beliefs. Simply, the public schools should work to ensure that they do not endorse or disapprove religion, neither promoting nor denigrating it. What happens when a student responds to a secular assignment with religious expression? This is as much a free speech issue as it is a religious liberty issue. Where a student responds to an assignment (for example, a book report) with a religiously-themed project (for example, reporting on a religious tract), a school may not refuse to accept the assignment solely because it has a religious basis (students have a right to free expression). However, if in observing the presentation of the assignment -- especially expressive assignments like artwork, plays and reports that are presented publicly -- an observer might think that the project is endorsed by the school, it is a problem. Thus, a book report delivered to a teacher may not be rejected merely because it is religious, whereas a work of art that will be hung up or displayed by the school or a play intended for public performance is unacceptable. Indeed, educators are able to exercise considerable control over "student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for

their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school." 34 Sample Scenarios: Sixth-grader Asks Teacher about Religious Beliefs of Historical Groups Mr. Clark's sixth grade class used a standard reader which had stories on a wide variety of topics. One passage in the reader involved the first settlers in the "new world," and another described Leonardo da Vinci as the human with a creative mind that "came closest to the divine touch." Talia Berk, a student in Mr. Clark's class, was interested in the passage about the first settlers and asked how the religious beliefs and practices of these settlers compared with those of the Native American Indians. How should Mr. Clark answer Talia's question on the settlers? After researching the question, the teacher may explain the answer to Talia in a secular, objective and nondoctrinal manner, or recommend a book on the subject which is secular, unbiased and nondoctrinal. Parent of Sixth-grader Objects to Reading Assignment on Religious Grounds Joe Smith, also a student in Mr. Clark's class, showed the reader referenced in the prior scenario to his mother, who became very upset with the passage on Leonardo da Vinci, since she viewed it as contrary to her religious beliefs. Joe's mother asked Mr. Clark to excuse Joe from using the reader. Mr. Clark, unsure of how to respond to Mrs. Smith's request, went to the principal to seek guidance. Should Joe be exempted from using the standard reader? The school should not excuse Joe from using the standard reader. However, the school must ensure that the standard reader neither promotes nor opposes religion, and that Joe is merely required to read and discuss the material and is not required to perform or refrain from performing any act forbidden or mandated by his religion. Jewish Student Asked to Explain Hanukkah to Class Mr. Parker, who is not Jewish, is afraid that he will mischaracterize Hanukkah when he is explaining about holidays. In class, he calls on a Jewish student to see if she would be willing to explain to the class the meaning of Hanukkah. She tries to do so. Later that day, she tells her mother about the incident, who objects to Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker pro-poses that the mother come to class and explain Hanukkah. She agrees and comes to school and performs a holiday-foods cooking demonstration. Should Mr. Parker have asked the student to explain Hanukkah? Should he have asked her mother? By asking the student, Mr. Parker singled her out from her peers and made Hanukkah seem too exotic for him to explain. It is also unlikely that many students would have the requisite knowledge to give an accurate answer. By asking the mother, Mr. Parker rightly shifted the burden off of the student to an adult. However, he must make sure that the presentation given by the mother is neutral, objective and fits in with a broader lesson plan concerning the holidays. Better still, Mr. Parker could avail himself of one of the many books about Hanukkah and prepare himself to teach the lesson.

Why Sexist Language Matters


Gendered words and phrases like "you guys" may seem small compared to issues like violence against women, but changing our language is an easy way to begin overcoming gender inequality.
For years I've been teaching a sociology course at the University of North Carolina on gender inequality. I cover such topics as the wage gap, the "second shift" (of housework and childcare) that heterosexual women often do in the home, the "third shift" (women's responsibility for intimate relationships with men), compulsory heterosexuality, the equation of women's worth with physical attractiveness, the sexualizing of women in the media, lack of reproductive rights for women (especially poor women), sexual harassment and men's violence against women.

My course makes links among items on that list. For example, if women are expected to take care of housework and children, then they cannot compete as equals with men in the workplace; if men see women largely as sex objects and servers, then it is hard for men to see women as serious workers outside the home; if women are taught that it is their job to take care of relationships with men, they may be blamed for breakups; if women are economically dependent on men, they may stay with abusive male partners; if women prefer intimacy with women, men may harass or violate them. What I've left off the list is the issue that both women and men in my classes have the most trouble understanding -- or, as I see it, share a strong unwillingness to understand -- sexist language. I'm not referring to such words as "bitch," "whore" and "slut." What I focus on instead are words that students consider just fine: male (so-called) generics. Some of these words refer to persons occupying a position: postman, chairman, freshman, congressman, fireman. Other words refer to the entire universe of human beings: "mankind" or "he." Then we've got manpower, manmade lakes and "Oh, man, where did I leave my keys?" There's "manning" the tables in a country where children learn that "all men are created equal." The most insidious, from my observations, is the popular expression "you guys." Please don't tell me it's a regional term. I've heard it in the Triangle, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Montreal. I've seen it in print in national magazines, newsletters and books. And even if it were regional, that doesn't make it right. I'll bet we can all think of a lot of practices in our home regions that we'd like to get rid of. I sound defensive. I know. But that's because I've so often heard (and not only from students) ... What's the big deal? Why does all this "man-ning" and "guys-ing" deserve a place in my list of items of gender inequality and justify taking up inches of space in the newsletter of a rape crisis center? Because male-based generics are another indicator -- and more importantly, a reinforcer -- of a system in which "man" in the abstract and men in the flesh are privileged over women. Some say that language merely reflects reality and so we should ignore our words and work on changing the unequal gender arrangements that are reflected in our language. Well, yes, in part. It's no accident that "man" is the anchor in our language and "woman" is not. And of course we should make social change all over the place. But the words we use can also reinforce current realities when they are sexist (or racist or heterosexist). Words are tools of thought. We can use words to maintain the status quo or to think in new ways -- which in turn creates the possibility of a new reality. It makes a difference if I think of myself as a "girl" or a "woman"; it makes a difference if we talk about "Negroes" or "African-Americans." Do we want a truly inclusive language or one that just pretends?

Before I discuss how benign-sounding words like "freshman" and "you guys" reinforce the gender inequalities on my list, above, let me tell you about an article that made a difference in my own understanding of sexist language. In 1986 Douglas Hofstadter, a philosopher, wrote a parody of sexist language by making an analogy with race. His article ("A Person Paper on Purity in Language") creates an imaginary world in which generics are based on race rather than gender. In that world, people would use "fresh white," "chair white" and yes, "you whiteys." People of color would hear "all whites are created equal" -- and be expected to feel included. Substituting "white" for "man" makes it easy to see why using "man" for all human beings is wrong. Yet, women are expected to feel flattered by "freshman," "chairman" and "you guys." And can you think of one, just one, example of a female-based generic? Try using "freshwoman" with a group of male students or calling your male boss "chairwoman." Then again, don't. There could be serious consequences for referring to a man as a "woman" -- a term that still means "lesser" in our society. If not, why do men get so upset at the idea of being called women? And why do so many women cling to "freshman," "chairman" and "you guys?" I think I know why, though it doesn't make me feel any better. "Man" is a high-status term, and women want to be included in the "better" group. But while being labeled "one of the guys" might make us feel included, it's only a guise of inclusion, not the reality. If we were really included, we wouldn't have to disappear into the word "guys." I'm not saying that people who use "you guys" have bad intentions, but think of the consequences. All those "man" words -- said many times a day by millions of people every day -- cumulatively reinforce the message that men are the standard and that women should be subsumed by the male category. We know from history that making a group invisible makes it easier for the powerful to do what they want with members of that group. And we know, from too many past and current studies, that far too many men are doing "what they want" with women. Most of us can see a link between calling women "sluts" and "whores" and men's sexual violence against women. We need to recognize that making women linguistically a subset of man/men through terms like "mankind" and "guys" also makes women into objects. If we, as women, aren't worthy of such true generics as "first-year," "chair" or "you all," then how can we expect to be paid a "man's wage," be respected as people rather than objects (sexual or otherwise) on the job and at home, be treated as equals rather than servers or caretakers of others, be considered responsible enough to make our own decisions about reproduction, define who and what we want as sexual beings? If we aren't even deserving of our place in humanity in language, why should we expect to be treated as decent human beings otherwise?

Now and then someone tells me that I should work on more important issues -- like men's violence against women -- rather than on "trivial" issues like language. Well, I work on lots of issues. But that's not the point. What I want to say (and dosay, if I think they'll give me the time to explain) is that working against sexist language is working against men's violence against women. It's one step. If we cringe at "freshwhite" and "you whiteys" and would protest such terms with loud voices, then why don't we work as hard at changing "freshman" and "you guys?" Don't women deserve it? If women primarily exist in language as "girls" (children), "sluts" and "guys," it does not surprise me that we still have a long list of gendered inequalities to fix. We've got to work on every item on the list. Language is one we can work on right now, if we're willing. It's easier to start saying "you all" instead of "you guys" than to change the wage gap tomorrow. Nonsexist English is a resource we have at the tip of our tongues. Let's start tasting this freedom now. I hope that you'll check the website about sexist language:www.youall2.freeservers.com. You'll find there an educational tool -- a business-sized card about the problems with "you guys" -- that you can download on a computer and leave at restaurants and other public places where the term is used. You can also leave it with friends and begin a conversation about all the reasons why sexist language matters.

How Gendered Language Affects Perceptions


February 9th, 2013 The state of Washington has been working for several years to change the language in its laws to gender-neutral terms. If legislation passes as expected, no longer will there be penmanship, freshmen, and watchmen. Instead, Washington will have handwriting, first-year students, and security guards. Several other states have followed suit, with about half making moves toward gender-neutral language. Such language is often lampooned as politically correct and excessively burdensome, but research shows that language affects perceptions. Perceptions, in turn, affect behavior, and using gender-neutral language can be a meaningful move towardgender equality. The Pervasiveness of Gendered Language Gendered language is so common that its difficult for some people to even notice it. From job postings to laws, words such as policeman, councilman, mankind, and fireman abound. This omnipresence of gendered language may be part of the problem. When people stop noticing gendered language, its easier to think of male as the default. People who do a double-take when they see words such as policewoman or police officer may be doing so because theres an incongruence between what their expectation of a police officer isa maleand the possibility of a woman filling the role. The more

frequently gendered language occurs, the more likely it is that people develop male as the prototype for a particular role. This can affect a wide range of behaviors and lead to subtle biases. A company that posts a job seeking an ombudsman, for example, may envision a male in the role because of the use of gendered language. This can give women a slight disadvantage when they seek out the job because women applicants dont completely match the hiring managers vision for a future employee. The person in charge of hiring may never even be aware of this subtle bias, but this doesnt mean its not there. Effects on Women From the time theyre children, women experience an onslaught of gendered language, and this can subtly alter their perceptions of themselves. Even women report that their prototype of police officers and firefighters is male, and this may be due in part to gendered language. Gender conditioning can affect the choices men and women make, and when women grow up learning that theyre not the ideal image of a particular role, their options are limited. Male as Default The use of terms such as mankind is particularly problematic because it treats men as the default. When man is used to refer to all of us, women are completely excluded, even if the term is intended to be gender-neutral. Thus, men are established as the norm against which everything is judged, and women are treated as deviant from this norm. Real-life examples of this can be found in the long-time medical practice of using only male research subjectsa practice that has changed over the past few years. Setting an Example While gender-neutral language can seem frustrating and cumbersome at first, this is primarily because its new, not because theres anything particularly onerous about its use. When states establish gender-neutral language, they help this language become part of the common lexicon and set an example demonstrating that gender-neutral language is just as easy to use as gendered language.

The Gender-Neutral Language Controversy


by Michael D. Marlowe, 2001
One of the most controversial features of several recent versions of the Bible has been the use of gender-neutral language. Many articles and at least three books have appeared dealing with this issue in the past seven years. (1) I can add little to what has already been said by scholars on both sides of the issue. In this article I will provide some

background information and a brief history of the controversy for those who are not already familiar with the facts.

The Feminist Origin of Gender-Neutral Language


Gender-neutral language is a style of writing that adheres to certain rules that were first proposed by feminist language reformers in universities during the 1970s, and which have been accepted as normative in many schools since about 1980. The rules prohibit various common usages which are deemed to be sexist, as for example the use of the word man, and the generic use of masculine pronouns, in referring to persons of unspecified gender. A number of new words were also recommended, as for example chairperson, spokesperson, etc., as substitutes for the sexist words in common use. Feminists hoped that by means of such reforms in the universities the language of the whole society might gradually be reformed, and that by means of such a reform in the language, the consciousness of people would be rendered more favorable to feminist ideas. (2) There is some disagreement as to what to call this new style of writing. Its advocates have called it by various names and descriptions: inclusive language, gender-inclusive language, gender generic language, non-sexist language, etc. Some translators have even preferred to call it gender accurate language, because they claim that only the use of such language in a translation will accurately reflect the inclusive intent of the original. Conservatives have of course objected to the term gender accurate. They have also objected to the word inclusive as a description for the new style, because this implies that the generic man and he are not really inclusive. Most conservatives have preferred to call the new style gender-neutral. Some others have called it inclusivist language, which aptly expresses the intent of the language reformers without implying any agreement with their linguistic claims.

Feminism in the Seminaries


Feminist complaints about the English language were almost immediately echoed by those who controlled the older Protestant seminaries. In a 1975 editorial published in the journal of Princeton

Theological Seminary, Theology Today, the editors advised their contributors: A literary consideration of increasing importance for us these days relates to the avoidance of exclusive in favor of inclusive sexist language. In the last several issues, we have been quietly transposing sex-specific language. We don't want to be legalistic about this, and quotations, biblical and otherwise, will mostly stand as originally written. But we think this is a literary revolution of major, even theological, importance. For our writers, this will mean not only careful attention to grammar but, in many instances, a new way of writing altogether. If we cannot make changes easily in a manuscript, it will either be returned for revision or we will allow the author to assume responsibility for the implied discrimination. We believe that Christian faith is more interested in persons than in restrictive traditions (cf. Mark 7:9). If some feel dehumanized because conventional language (even little pronouns) exclude them or offend their self-awareness, then we want to change our syntax and not expect them to change their identities. (3) During the late 1970s the liberal mainline seminaries generally adopted these new rules of usage. The feminists in these seminaries were not satisfied, however, with the gender-neutral language as applied only to persons, and insisted upon gender-neutral language in reference to God also; and so during the 1980s gender-neutral language in reference to God became normal and even prescribed by codes of speech. Today it is not permissible for students in many schools to use the pronoun he in reference to God, and even such usages as God Godself (instead of God himself) have gained currency in these places. The feminists have insisted upon the use of such language as a very important moral duty.

The Patriarchal Bible Problem


After this change in language was brought about in seminaries, the next effort was to promote its use in the churches at large, by means of denominational publications. But a great hindrance to this campaign was the fact that the Bible itself did not abide by their new rules.

The Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible often use generic masculine nouns (adam and anthropos, both meaning man) and generic masculine pronouns in a gender-inclusive sense, in reference to persons of unspecified gender. In the Epistles, believers in general are addressed as adelphoi, brethren. Such usages are not merely figments of sexist English translations; they are a normal feature of the original languages, just as they are normal in English and many other languages. In most cases the inclusive intent of the writer is obvious from the context, and when the intent is not inclusive, this is also obvious enough from the context. The interpreter must not proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurrence of adam and anthropos is to be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, because the Bible for the most part records the names and actions of men, uses male examples, assumes a male audience, and in general focuses on men and their concerns while leaving women in the background. This feature of the text is obviously related to the cultural situation and expectations of the original authors and recipients, and so any movement to disguise it in translation runs up against the academic qualms already being expressed by Bruce Metzger in 1976: How far is it feasible to eradicate from an ancient text those features that belong to the patriarchal culture in which its narratives had their origin? (4) To illustrate the extent of the problem we give now a few examples of how these patriarchal tendencies manifest themselves in the biblical text.

In Genesis 2:24, after Adam declares that Eve is flesh of my flesh, it is said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. It has been observed by commentators that among the Israelites for whom this text was written, it was really the woman who left her father and mother. She was brought into the extended family of her husband, and the new household was established on the property of the mans family. Why then do we read that a man shall leave his father and his mother, instead of a woman shall leave her father and her mother? It is because this saying is describing the action from the mans perspective. In Genesis 3:23-24 we read that God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden, but the text says nothing about Eve being driven out. Obviously we must understand that both were exiled, but the writer sees fit to describe this event in terms of Adams exile.

In Genesis 4:17 we read And Cain knew his wife. But where did this woman come from? Evidently she was a daughter of Adam and Eve, but her birth goes unmentioned, and in the narrative her existence becomes important only in connection with the progeny of Cain. The genealogies of the Old Testament rarely mention wives or mothers. Often when a woman does appear in a narrative she is not named, but is referred to only as the wife of a certain man (e.g. Noahs wife). In Genesis 32:22 we read that Jacob took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the ford of the Jabbok. The word translated children here is yeladim, which might be expected to include both sons and daughters (cf. the usage in Exodus 21:4); but Jacob at this point in the narrative has twelvechildren: eleven sons and one daughter. Dinahs birth was mentioned in 30:21, and in chapter 34 we have the story of how her brothers killed all the men of Shechem to avenge the loss of her maidenhood, but here in 32:22 she is omitted from the number of Jacobs children. God is often described as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g. Exodus 3:16) but what of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel? The tendency of the writers to address males in particular is seen in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). There we read, You shall not covet your neighbors wife. Likewise the sexual ordinances in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, though they pertain to both men and women, are all addressed to men. (Note the shift from second to third person in 18:23, You shall not lie with ... neither shall any woman ...). In Psalm 128, addressed to everyone who fears the LORD, it is said that your wife shall be as a fruitful vine within your house. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 21:10-13 (when you go out to war ... and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her as your wife ...) the persons directly addressed with the pronouns you and your cannot include women. In Deuteronomy 29 we read, Moses summoned all Israel and said to them ... you are standing today all of you before the Lord your God ... your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp ... so that you may enter into the sworn covenant, and we note that all of you in this context can only refer to all of the men in the assembly. See also Exodus 22:24, 32:2, Deuteronomy3:19, Joshua 1:14,

Nehemiah 4:14, Jeremiah 44:9, 44:25, and Malachi 2:14. This male-oriented language cannot be explained by saying that the text presupposes a setting in which only men were present, because in several places we are explicitly told that women were also present in the assemblies (Deuteronomy 29:11, Joshua 8:35, 2 Chronicles 20:13, Joel 2:16). In Jeremiah chapter 44 it is explictly stated that Jeremiah spoke to the men and to the women (verse 20), to all the people, and to all the women (verse 24), but he says, thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye and your wives have both spoken (verse 25). The instruction he gives here pertains mostly to the behavior of the women (who have been burning incense to the Queen of Heaven), but, as usual, the women are addressed only indirectly. The men are addressed directly because God holds them responsible for the behavior of their wives.

Much of the book of Proverbs is addressed to young men, with warnings against getting involved with prostitutes and adulteresses (e.g. 7:5), but there is no similar advice given directly to women. The famous description of the excellent wife in Proverbs 31 is cast in the third person. In Deuteronomy 7 there is a good example of how the Hebrew text tends to encode patriarchal ideas: the chapter begins speaking of the need for the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites, and in verse 3 it says, you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your son away from following me, that they may serve other gods. The masculine singular forms are used here because the focus is on the duty of the Jewish father, the religious practices of his son, and the bad influence of a heathen father-in-law. The girl (usually at about the age of sixteen) is taken from her father by her new husbands father, on behalf of his son, and she is given to her new husband. Nothing is said regarding the daughter who is given to a Canaanites son, because it is taken for granted that she must worship her husbands gods. The text focuses on what may happen to the son who takes a daughter of Canaan to be his wife, because this association with heathenism will weaken the sons resolve to worship only the God of his fathers. Regarding this, it is especially notable that the text does not say that she (i.e. the Canaanites daughter) will turn the Jewish son away, but instead skips over the woman to focus on a manhe will turn your son away. (The

heathen patriarch is meant. See the American Standard Versionfor the literal translation.) The heathen mother-in-law is not mentioned. The linguistic features of these sentences are not meaningless accidents of the Hebrew language, nor are they constrained by any grammatical requirements of the language; they are reflections of the patriarchal assumptions of the author, which are in several ways controlling the choice of words in this text. None of this changes when we come to the New Testament.

In Luke 18:29 we read a promise of Jesus, there is no one who has left house or wife ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more. He says wife, not husband or wife. In Acts 21:4-5 it is said that the disciples () at Tyre accompanied Paul with wives and children. In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul addresses the whole congregation with second-person plural forms which cannot be inclusive of women: if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you (5:2). In 1 Corinthians 7:2728 he writes, Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinnedand if a virgin marries she has not sinned. In 1 Corinthians 14:31 he says, You can all prophesy one by one, but in verse 34 he says the women should keep silent. In such places it becomes obvious that the authors of the New Testament are addressing their words primarily to men. Typically men are addressed in the second person while women are referred to in the third person. In Luke 15, Jesus introduces one parable in verse 4 with the words, What man of you, having a hundred sheep (second person plural), and the next parable in verse 8, what woman, having ten silver coins (third person). Sometimes a serious misunderstanding will come from a failure to recognize that the text presupposes a male audience. For instance, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus warning against frivolous divorce is framed entirely from the standpoint of the man anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual

immorality, makes her commit adultery. Here the hapless wife, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, is said to be adulterated by any remarriage, after having been wrongly divorced. In ancient times a woman had to remarry if she was to have any security, and so it might seem that a woman who had been divorced is put in an impossible moral position by the saying. But this hyperbolic saying is aimed entirely against the man who unjustly divorces his wife, and there is no intention of stigmatizing innocent women here. The idea that the husband makes her commit adultery is merely an ironic way of saying that God looks upon the divorce as illegitimate. Jesus did not intend for anyone to draw from this saying any rule for the divorced woman, because the saying was not meant to be read from the standpoint of the woman . The woman is not even considered to be a morally responsible agent.

When people are numbered in the Bible, it is the men who are numbered. In Numbers 1:2 the sum of all the congregation is found by counting every male. Likewise in Ezra chap. 2 and Nehemiah chap. 7, the number of the whole congregation (Ezra 2:64, Nehemiah 7:66) is the number of the men [ enashim, here denoting common men or laymen] of the people of Israel (Ezra 2:2, Nehemiah 7:7) plus the number of priests, levites, and other temple workers. In Matthew 14:21 we are told that those who had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children, and likewise Matthew 15:38 mentions four thousand men, beside women and children. In Acts 4:4 it says many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men (arithmos ton andron) was about five thousand. In Revelation 14:4 we read that the 144,000 redeemed from tribulation have not defiled themselves with women. In various places the Bible contains expressions which are quite unacceptable in the modern climate of political correctness. In 2 Timothy 3:6 Paul refers to false teachers who prey upon silly women, (5) and in 1 Timothy 4:7 he warns Timothy to have nothing to do with the worthless fables that are , typical of old women. In Isaiah 19:16 the prophet says the Egyptians will become like women ( )and tremble with fear (similarly Jeremiah 50:37, 51:30, and Nahum 3:13). In 1 Corinthians 16:13 Paul urges the Corinthians to stand

firm and act like men. This is how a man speaks to men. In short, the Bible is by no means gender-neutral. It presents from beginning to end a thoroughly androcentric perspective, and it often leaves it to the reader to decide what application to women or what inclusion of women is implied. In pointing these things out, I am aware of the fact that I am breaking an unwritten law of modern apologetics. The tendency today among conservative Christian writers is to deny that the Bible is primarily addressed to men. Although it is undeniably true, evidently it is thought to be too embarrassing or too scandalous to be talked about, or even admitted. Frankly, it seems to me that there has been more honesty on this point among liberal scholars than among conservatives, because liberal scholars are not so worried about what people will think of the Bible because of itbut the fact is, the biblical authors are completely oblivious to anything resembling the modern rules of polite inclusivity in discourse. One feminist critic in pointing to this feature of the biblical text has said that it means the female reader must read much of the Bible as if she were a man, which is quite true. (6) If we begin looking for places where women are directly addressed in the Bible, we quickly discover that in such cases the message is even more offensive to the modern egalitarian mindset than anything which has been noted above. The women are addressed only to remind them that they are not equal: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22-24. See also 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:3435, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3:1-6, etc.) Obviously such passages present serious problems for those who wish to tone down the patriarchalism of the Bible, and many feminists have concluded that there is not much to be gained by making the language of such a pervasively patriarchal book inclusive. According to one feminist critic this may even be a bad idea. After highlighting

some examples of patriarchal, misogynist, and androcentric features which are only superficially camouflaged by recent genderneutral Bible versions, she concludes: By changing the language of patriarchy we run the danger of merely disguising, rather than eliminating, the deeply ingrained patterns which we struggle against. We thus risk embedding misogynist discourse even more deeply into our metaphoric constructions, while at the same time removing the signals which could alert us to its presence ... changing the language does not necessarily remove the bias or the sexism that remains embedded in the thought patterns, images and metaphors which, with language, combine to form a given text. Indeed, removing the language which signals sexist bias may result in obscuring that bias beyond conscious recognition, while allowing it to continue to quietly permeate our cultural subconscious ... The masculine bias has not been removed; it has simply been rendered more subtle and therefore more dangerous, because more difficult to discern and expose ... When symbol, image and metaphor are so deeply embedded in a text and culture as is the case with the Bible, perhaps it is time to recognize that we cannot easily eliminate the gendered biases which so often define the very essence of its thought and to set our energies rather to exposing those biases. Language is only a symptom of a more deeply ingrained problem; in changing the language alone, therefore, we run the risk of merely disguising the biases which are inherent in the text and its cultural stance. Unrecognized, and unrecognizable, those biases become even more insidious, even more powerful. This is particularly dangerous with a text such as the Bible which has played a foundational role in the formation of our own culture to the extent that its influence is so subtle and pervasive that it goes unrecognized in a culture that believes itself sophisticated and free of such influence. Rather than empowering gender bias by rendering it implicit, perhaps it is better to expose its hidden power, retaining the language which signals its presence and eliminating its force by bringing it into the light of critical and analytical discourse. (7) Nevertheless, most religious feminists who have taken an interest in the Bible have felt that something should be done to suppress its patriarchal aspects. But what was to be done?

The remedy proposed was twofold: (1) a revision of the Bible, in which the new dynamic equivalence method of translating would be employed so as to conform the text to the same stylistic guidelines which had lately been imposed on the seminary, and to otherwise obscure the patriarchalism of the Bible by the adoption of feminist interpretations; and (2) an elimination of the intractable problem passages (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-24) by means of a revised lectionary (schedule of readings) which was to omit all passages in which the subordination of women is so plainly taught that it could not be obscured by false interpretations. By this means the Bible might be exhibited as an example of political correctness to all who heard it read in the churches. The earliest example of such an effort was the Inclusive Language Lectionary published by the National Council of Churches in 1983. This lectionary presented gender-neutral adaptations of Scripture for the readings prescribed in the Common Lectionary (1983, revised 1992), which excluded 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The adaptations were thoroughgoing, and included genderneutral language in reference to God. Soon after this, complete versions of the Bible which featured a moderate use of gender-neutral language began to appear. In 1985 the New Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic version, became the first such version. But the first version to use gender-neutral language in a really thorough and systematic way was the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which appeared in 1990. This version was created under a mandate from the copyright holder, the National Council of Churches, to eliminate sexist language. It did not however substitute gender-neutral language in reference to God, and it did not incorporate many of the misinterpretations proposed by feminists, and so it did not satisfy many liberals. In 1991 a version of the New Testament much more to their liking appeared: the Contemporary English Version, published by the American Bible Society (the complete Bible appeared in 1995). This version did not use gender-neutral language for God, but it did incorporate many feminist interpretations that went beyond the mere use of gender-neutral language. In Genesis 2:18, Eve is called not a helper but a partner of Adam; in 1 Peter 3:1, Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22 women are advised to put their husbands first

rather than submit to them; in 1 Corinthians 11:10 the CEV says a woman should wear a head covering not merely as a sign of authority (usually interpreted to mean her husbands authority) but as a sign of her authority. In 1 Timothy 3:3 and 3:12 genderneutered officers of the church are required to be faithful in marriage rather than the husband of one wife. Going still further, in 1994 a group of liberal Roman Catholics published the Inclusive New Testament, in which full advantage was taken of the principle of dynamic equivalence. Typical of this version is the following rendering of Colossians 3:18-19. You who are in committed relationships, be submissive to each other. This is your duty in Christ Jesus. Partners joined by God, love each other. Avoid any bitterness between you. In 1995, liberal Protestants published a similar version in the New Testament and Psalms, An Inclusive Version. Both of these versions featured gender-neutral language for God along with many other politically correct alterations designed to combat racism, homophobia, ageism, anti-semitism, etc. The liberties taken with the text of Scripture in these versions were however so flagrant that they were met with ridicule in the popular press. For the time being at least, the most reputable liberal scholars have not ventured to publicly defend them as legitimate translations, although it remains to be seen how much headway such avant garde versions will make in the next generation.

Evangelical Feminism?
None of the versions mentioned above were produced by organizations which professed to be evangelical, and they were intended for an audience which did not consider itself to be evangelical. Their use has been limited to the shrinking mainline churches controlled by liberals. But by 1990 feminism had made some inroads into evangelical circles also, and its influence was evident in several seminaries and Bible agencies which were considered to be evangelical. (8) Academics in these seminaries and agencies were involved in the production of five gender-neutral versions that were published between 1986 and 1996, and which were intended for the evangelical market. The first of these, the New Century Version, was

a version intended for young children. It was brought out by a small publisher and attracted little notice. Next was Gods Word, another little-known version that made a very cautious use of gender-neutral language. The third was the New International Readers Version (NIrV), and the fourth version was The New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). These last two were revisions of the popular New International Version (NIV). The NIrV was a simplification of the NIV intended for children, and its gender-neutral renderings were not noticed until later. The NIVI, which very much resembled the NRSV, was first published in England, where the people who consider themselves to be evangelical are much more liberal than in America, and for a year or two it went unnoticed in America. Then in 1996 the New Living Translation (NLT), which also made consistent use of gender-neutral language, appeared on the market with much fanfare; but, like the NIrV, this version made such heavy use of the dynamic equivalence method that the gender-neutral language was scarcely to be noticed in the general looseness of translation. In 1997 the issue of gender-neutral dynamic equivalence came dramatically to the forefront after World magazine (9) revealed that the International Bible Society (IBS), which owns the copyright of the NIV and had apparently come under the influence of evangelical feminists, (10) was planning to publish its little-known NIVI soon in America, as a new edition of the NIV. Because the NIV was widely used as a trustworthy version in evangelical circles, a great uproar ensued, in which several conservative Christian organizations brought pressure against the IBS to abandon these plans. In May of 1997 James Dobson, the influential head of the Focus on the Family ministry, convened several prominent evangelical leaders for a special meeting on the issue at Colorado Springs. The participants issued a declaration of recommended guidelines which would discourage the artificial use of gender-neutral language in Bible translations. The IBS reluctantly yielded to this pressure, and at that time promised that it would not publish this new edition of the New International Version in America. It also issued a revision (1998) of its NIrV in which the gender-neutral language was replaced with more accurate renderings. The controversy was not settled by this however, because various scholars came forward with arguments for gender-neutral language, provoking counter-arguments, and then the IBS announced that it would publish its gender-neutral revision of the NIV, under another name. (11) Advance review copies of this revision, under the

name Todays New International Version, were distributed in January 2002. The reaction to it has been overwhelmingly negative. The NIV inclusive language controversy has widened into criticism and defense of the dynamic equivalence method which had made such an objectionable revision possible in the first place. Many evangelicals who had been using the NIV began to doubt the trustworthiness of the version in its original form. Although the liberal organizations that sponsored the earlier genderneutral versions plainly avowed their ideological motives for such revisions, advocates of the revised NIV (writing for a conservative audience) produced some literature (12) that defended some of the changes on scholarly or linguistic grounds alone. The word anthropoi was mentioned as a word in the Greek text which is sometimes quite properly translated people. Examples were given where a plural they put in place of the generic he does not appear to affect the meaning at all, and the change was defended on the ground that the gender-inclusive meaning of the sentence is better conveyed by such a dynamically equivalent rendering. But critics (13) drew attention to places where the systematic substitution of plurals did significantly interfere with the sense. For example, in Psalm 1, the one man whose delight is in the law of the Lord is set in opposition to the many ungodly ones around him. But when the man is made to disappear into a group of genderless people, then a part of the meaning of this passage is lost. It was also noticed that the Messianic interpretations of some Old Testament passages were eliminated in the pursuit of genderless language, as in Psalm 8:4, where the phrase son of man becomes human beings (compare to Hebrews 2:6). Another debated point was the extent to which the gender-neutral style adopted in the new versions could be justified on the basis of common English usage. Some claimed that the generic use of man and he are no longer commonly used or understood, and that a translation which aims to be understood must avoid these usages. In support of this idea they referred to the gender-neutral style of textbooks used in schools, (14) and of some television and newspaper journalism, as representative of the people at large, and as proof that the gender-neutral style had become normal and standard usage outside of the academic circles where it originated.

Critics replied that the politically correct language of school textbooks and journalism are far from being representative of established English usage, or of English as it is commonly spoken.

(15)

It should be noted that not everyone who has advocated the use of gender-neutral versions in the evangelical sub-culture has done this with some hidden feminist agenda in mind. Some evangelicals, such as D.A. Carson, have advocated this change in Bible versions apparently because they feel a great awkwardness when linguistic customs of modern and polite society are not observed, especially in mixed company. Their desire to make the Bible speak politely is nothing new. As early as 1833 Noah Webster (the famous American lexicographer) revised the King James Version so as to eliminate many words and phrases that he deemed offensive, especially to females. There has always been a certain amount of uneasiness about expressions in the Bible which were thought to be offensive to women, and ever since the days of Webster there has been a constantly growing concern about the feelings and opinions of women in the churches. So this new trend toward gender-neutralism may be seen in this light. Yet it should also be noted that in former times this kind of condescending editorial work did not try to conceal its nature under specious arguments about the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. Some apologists for gender-neutral Bible versions have even argued that the Greek word aner, which clearly means adult male, is a gender-neutral word. Arguments like this could not have arisen among scholars apart from a desire to provide ad hoc justifications for gender-neutral renderings. (16) More important in the long run were the arguments concerning the legitimacy of dynamic equivalence as a method of translating. This method, which was employed to a moderate degree in the original NIV, had for a long time been criticized by the more conservative evangelicals, who warned of its dangers. As the NIV controversy unfolded, these critics were in a strong position to argue that the NIV from the beginning embodied dangerous tendencies, and that it is time for evangelicals to turn away from it.

Conclusion
Gender-neutral Bible versions originated as an attempt by feminists to transform both the language and the beliefs of Christians. They

were welcomed in liberal circles, but were met with strong resistance among evangelicals. The creators and defenders of these versions have suffered a loss of reputation among evangelicals, and publishers are not likely to market them successfully among evangelicals in the near future.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai