O God Our [Mother and] Father

By Richard N. Ostling

New translations seek to rid the Bible of "male bias "

For millions of Americans, no publication is awaited more eagerly than a fresh translation of the biblical texts that are so important to their practice of religion. In the past, even relatively minor changes have caused an uproar, but they pale beside the revisions in a radical new version of scriptural readings that was released last week. The translations alter or eradicate beloved phrases that have stood for millenniums. God in heaven is no longer just the Father but the "Father [and Mother]" (or "[Mother and] Father"). The Deity is addressed as "Sovereign One," but never as the "Lord." Jesus Christ is no longer designated as either the Son of God or the Son of man.

These unconventional translations are not the product of some eccentric scholar or self-appointed caucus, but of the National Council of Churches, supported by 32 Protestant and Orthodox denominations with 40 million members. The N.C.C. sought to provide Bible readings for worship services that were free of the "male bias" in Scripture that militant feminists have been complaining about for nearly a decade. To proponents, the book is an advance toward equal treatment. To opponents, the translations are tasteless, if not heretical.

The N.C.C. book of readings, offered for "experimental and voluntary use in churches," remarkably affects the imagery and impact of many of the best-known Bible passages. Additions to the original text are set off in brackets. For instance, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," (Matthew 11: 27) becomes "All things have been delivered to me by [God] my Father [and Mother]; and no one knows the Child except God, and no one knows God except the Child and any one to whom the Child chooses to reveal God."

Drastic changes like these immediately started a strident debate. A Methodist agency dealing with the role of women in the church called on the 38,000 congregations and 9.5 million members of the denomination to employ the new translations. But the heads of two major N.C.C. churches disowned the book. Said Archbishop lakovos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (2 million members): "It does not reflect the traditions and reverence of the Holy Scriptures." Bishop James R. Crumley Jr. of the Lutheran Church in America (2.9 million members) advised congregations not to read the book during worship services.

The task of taking the male orientation out of the Scriptures began in the 1970s, when women's caucuses in several Protestant denominations persuaded the N.C.C. to establish a Task Force on Sexism in the Bible. In 1980, the N.C.C. decided to form an Inclusive Language Lectionary Committee to prepare new Bible translations for reading during worship. Even before work began, the idea provoked the fiercest reaction in N.C.C. annals; nearly 10,000 letters attacking the project flooded into the organization's New York City headquarters.

To do the rewriting, the N.C.C. named a committee, headed by the Rev. Victor Roland Gold of California's Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, a minister in the L.C.A., whose leaders were to reject the book. Gold's group includes four other male and six female scholars, one of them a Roman Catholic nun. All are sympathetic to the feminist cause. Another participant dropped out midway, in part because he felt that the project was going too far.

The panel's new book, An Inclusive Language Lectionary: Readings for Year A ($7.95), rewrites 209 passages from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, which is also sponsored by the N.C.C.A lectionary is a list of Bible readings for services in congregations that follow liturgical worship. The N.C.C. book covers one year of readings often used by Protestant churches. Two other volumes are scheduled for 1984 and 1985.

The N.C.C. committee contends in its introduction that chauvinism characterizes not just English translations but the Old and New Testament manuscripts as written in Hebrew and Greek. The committee believes Scripture readings from standard Bibles "exclude half of those who hear" readings on Sunday--the women. The committee also complains that old Bible language about God the Father "has been used to support the excessive authority of earthly fathers."

It was the concept of God the Father that posed the toughest problem. The radical feminists' suggestion of "God/ess" was unthinkable, and "Parent" seemed too impersonal. The solution is "God our Father [and Mother]," alternated with "[Mother and] Father." Motherhood's rise is most striking in passages in which Jesus prays to "my [Mother and] Father." Other N.C.C. innovations:

Son of God--in place of this New Testament designation for Jesus Christ, the texts use a unisex "Child of God." To critics, this has connotations of immaturity.

Son of Man--instead of this phrase Jesus used to refer to himself, the N.C.C. panel employs "Human One."

Lord--this masculine term, repeatedly used for God and the most frequent biblical title for Jesus Christ, is replaced with "Sovereign" or "Sovereign One."

The N.C.C. translators made insertions to change the emphasis of some parts of the Bible. In verses that mention Abraham alone, for example, the committee brings in Sarah, his wife, and even his concubine, Hagar. This kind of alteration especially infuriates critics of the N.C.C. work. "They want to rewrite history, just like the Russians," remarks the Rev. Elizabeth Achtemeier of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia.

In its zeal to achieve sexual equality, the N.C.C. committee converted some of the most lyrical passages of the Bible into jolting newspeak. Pronouns turned out to be immovable obstacles. He, his and him are minimized in references to male human beings, including the earthly Jesus, and no male pronouns at all are used to refer to God or to Jesus Christ before he came to earth and after he had risen from the dead. A sample of the resulting disaster: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (John 3:16) becomes "For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child." Aversion to the pronoun himself is carried to a ludicrous extreme: "Christ humbled self."

Aesthetic problems aside, the N.C.C. is provoking fundamental theological disputes. The committee defends "Mother" as a metaphor for God that is just as acceptable as the traditional "Father." Indeed, it points out, the Bible contains numerous motherly metaphors to describe the Deity. If "Father" is taken to mean that God is literally male, the translators argue, the view is "idolatry."

But traditionalists like Vernard Eller of California's La Verne College believe God purposely revealed himself as masculine. "Whatever he may be in himself, for us he is Husband, Father and King." Achtemeier believes the N.C.C. version reflects the concepts of a pre-Christian, pre-Jewish paganism that worshiped goddesses. Theologian Donald Bloesch thinks the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is at stake, and that the Mother-Father God sounds like two deities in a "dyad."

Protestants who believe that God inspired the Bible word for word will, of course, be irate, as will moderates and liberals who think the Bible must be preserved as a historical text, however it might be interpreted today. Asks Lucetta Mowry, a New Testament scholar: "Is it the role of the translator to be a leader in social action? This seems to make the Bible into a manifesto for feminism."

The dispute even flares within the N.C.C. The council is now sponsoring a new edition of its bestselling Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The RSV translators plan to make modest use of inclusive language, such as "humanity" instead of "man." But they will have nothing to do with the approach of Gold's panel. Says the Rev. Bruce Metzger, a New Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and the head of the RSV committee: "The changes introduced in language relating to the Deity are tantamount to rewriting the Bible. As a Christian, and as a scholar, I find this altogether unacceptable. It will divide the church, rather than work for ecumenical understanding."

The N.C.C. insists that it has no plans to publish a desexed version of the Bible. Still, by the time it completes its next two lectionaries, Gold's panel will have renovated about 95% of the New Testament and 60% of the Old. Gold believes that, inevitably, such translations are "a first step in a process" leading, perhaps in a generation, to a complete Bible free of what the committee considers to be male bias. That could produce a Bible that would be more ideologically pure than other versions, but less read.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." . . . and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. -Genesis 2:18,22 (Old)

Then God the SOVEREIGN ONE said, "It is not good that the human being should be alone; I will make a companion corresponding to the creature."... and God the SOVEREIGN ONE built the rib which God took from the human being into woman and brought her to the man. -Genesis 2:18,22 (New)

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. -John 3:16,17 (Old)

For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child, that whoever believes in that Child should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent that Child into the world, not to condemn the world, but that through that Child the world might be saved. -John 3:16,17 (New) This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.