Plaster Saints, Part 3

I had hoped to move on to another subject, but I really feel that I should explore a few more thoughts on this issue. I promise this will be my last post on Packer. (I'm an English major, so you'll have to forgive me for the occasional alliteration.)

Remember that we've been talking a great deal about context. Well, Wayne Leman had an interesting comment on McCarthy's interview.

Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brothers.

Suzanne, it seems to me unlikely that Paul would have used a male-only word with the meaning of English "brothers" when the preceding proper name at the end of the named individuals is that of a Christian sister.

If the ESV team were to claim that English "brothers" is inclusive here, as they suggest as one meaning footnoted for Rom. 12:2, we have a dilemma, namely, how can readers of the ESV know when their English masculine words are intended to refer to males and when are they intended to refer to gender-inclusive groups.

Now, that's a very good question. How are readers of the ESV supposed to know when the context means only "brothers/men" and when it means "brothers and sisters/men and women"? Wouldn't it simply be easier if you said "brothers and sisters/men and women"? I remember a couple of years ago, I heard Wayne Grudem speak on Focus on the Family. He was talking about why the TNIV is such a bad translation and how we should all avoid it, primarily because of its gender-inclusive language. "I think that's patronizing to women," Grudem said. "When women read verses that say 'brothers' or 'men' they know that they're included. They don't need it spelled out for them."

Really? If you're a woman and you've been drilled in comp. theology, will you know that Paul meant to say "men and women" in 2 Tim 2:2? Or, based on "context," will you assume that you're excluded? Even if you're not a comp. woman, would you know to include women in that verse? Maybe or maybe not. Therefore, I find it rather patronizing that Grudem claims to understand what women think.

But then that gets back to the issue of translation. What if you don't believe that Paul should have included women in certain verses? By translating adelphoi as "men" you can leave your audience with the impression that Paul meant "men only." Again, rather than leaving your reader to play some sort of guessing game, or worse, to assume the wrong thing, wouldn't it be easier to simply state what the text says?


And now let me return to a thought I first mentioned in the original "Plaster Saints" post. I said that there is a possibility that Packer may have been dishonest in his endorsing of comp. theology. This is what I was talking about. It comes from the second part of McCarthy's interview with him.

I later came back to this and asked him if he had, in fact, read The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Controversy by Poythress and Grudem, which they wrote on this topic [the meaning of adelphoi]. He said that he had not read the book, it was a matter of priority, there is only so much time.

However, there is an endorsement on the back cover, stating, "This is the best book on its theme." J I Packer.

R. Mansfield added this comment to Suzanne's post.

Blurbs on the back of books usually mean nothing. The dirty little secret in the publishing industry is that the statements are already drafted and sent to a "reviewer" along with a copy of the book. All the reviewer has to do is sign the previously drafted statement regardless of whether the book has actually been read. I've even heard of some statements having been read over the phone with the "reviewer" asked if he or she agrees. This dishonest policy goes across the publishing industry, but it's even more shameful that it takes place in Christian publishing. And, unfortunately, it's not to say that some promotional blurbs aren't genuine, but how in the world would the person picking up the book in a store know the difference?

I don't know if this is what Packer did or not. Only he knows that. However, I agree with Mansfield. If this practice really is going on in the Christian publishing industry, then shame on anybody who participates in it. We Christians are supposed to be a light in the world. How can we be that if we indulge in the same dark practices that they do?