Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Articles in 2002 -- By: Rob Lister
JBMW 8:1 (Spring 03) p. 57
Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Articles in 2002
Compiled and Annotated by
Managing Editor and Assistant Managing Editor, respectively
Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
In this issue of the journal we profile significant gender-related articles from 2002. Here is a brief reminder about the categories we are using and our intent in using them. By Complementarian we simply seek to designate an author who recognizes the full personal equality of the sexes, coupled with an acknowledgment of role distinctions in the home and church. By Egalitarian then, we intend to classify evangelicals who see only undifferentiated equality, i.e. they see no Scriptural warrant for affirming male headship in the home or the church. Under the Non-Evangelical heading, we have classified important secular works as well as articles that broach the subject of biblical gender issues from a non-evangelical point of view. This category also serves as our classification for liberal scholars. Finally, under the Undeclared heading, we have listed those articles that do not give sufficient indication of their fundamental stance for us to classify them more specifically.
Andrews, James W. “Boundaries Without Bonds: How to Keep Headship from Being Hardship.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/1 (2002) 30-36.
Andrews offers a pastor’s perspective to thinking through implementation of a complementarian vision in our church and home life. He recognizes that there are numerous godly women who are extraordinarily gifted. And he is concerned to see that they are deployed to their maximal fulfillment in ministry in a way that is consonant (and therefore not restrictive but affirming) with God’s guidelines for ministry in the church and home.
Bock, Darrell L. “Do Gender-Sensitive Translations Distort Scripture? Not Necessarily.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (2002) 651-669.
Bock’s article proceeds in four main sections. In the first section, Bock attempts to lay the groundwork for his discussion by evaluating the different approaches to “gender-sensitive” translation. He argues that the terms gender-inclusive, gender-accurate, and gender-neutral do not, in and of themselves, reveal which form of gender sensitivity (e.g., ideological sensitivity vs. translational sensitivity) is being applied. He then argues that much of the issue comes down to a debate over formal equivalence vs. functional equivalence in translation theory. Briefly, in the second section, Bock su...
Click here to subscribe