There has been some discussion recently at Sydney Anglicans about gender-neutral or inclusive language and bible translation. Some are holding out, saying that the tide of trendy political correctness is turning, and that we should hold on to the use of 'men' to mean 'humankind'. Certainly, the structure of the English language makes this more convenient.
I remember thinking this through some years ago. What changed it all for me was reading an early 1970s study (so pre-the 'gender neutral language revolution' of the 1980s) that suggested that indeed a majority of women felt excluded when gender-exclusive language was used. Suffice it to say, I haven't been able to track that study down this morning... I read originally in (shock, horror) a book. Remember them?
Since much gender exclusive language is unneccessary to make the meaning absolutely clear, and since I don't wish to give offence except over the gospel (which is offensive enough and does need my offensive behaviour to add to it) I don't think obliging at this point is too much to ask. Indeed, it may even be a good thing: after all, Christians have led the way since the beginning in treating and accepting women as fully human. Shame we have to drag the chain now. And if many, many women report that they feel excluded by such language (and probably the ones NOT in church, so clergymen don't go off and ask your wives!) then it seems important to make a change. True, I went to uni in the late (as opposed to early) 80s and 90s when this was a cause in a way it isn't today, perhaps. But I - even I - find it embarassing and jarring and distracting when I hear an old 1978 NIV passage read out that translates anthropos as 'men' or adds a 'man' when it is unnecessary.
Especially, I feel that this is imperative for those of us who hold more complementarian positions on women's ministry. The accusation is always going to come that this theological position is just a mask for sexism. If it isn't, then wherever genuine sexism is present we need to eradicate it and to show that we are serious about it. This isn't caving in to the culture anymore than having proper procedures for dealing with child abuse is caving in to the culture... don't you think?
[Added later] - It seems to me there are different levels of acceptability for gendered language. You can slip in an occassional 'man' or 'mankind' (meaning 'the human race') and no-one seems to mind too much, especially if you are quoting ('one giant leap for mankind'). But using the male pronoun to represent both is much less acceptable - though a nice alternative to the gendered pronoun in English is harder to find.
31 comments:
Chill out, man. (as seen in the photo in your previous post).
There's room for freedom here. And if people make a mistake, we can clear it up in the subsequent discussion.
Oh, and I'm less than impressed by the comparison to child abuse.
Here's a hint about what the difference may involve. One involves sexual contact between someone over the age of 18 with someone who is under 18 and not in a position to defend themselves.
The other involves saying something that may or may not be intentionally offensive, but is taken as deliberately offensive by easily offended people.
I reckon most people can figure out that the two are not the same.
Don't be so sensitive? ;-)
The analogy is emotive but valid (if you read it carefully): the argument would be: 'if we use non-sexist language, we are caving into pressure to conform to the world's values.'
Whereas in fact, we can find that in this area, the world's values coincide somewhat with ours, and in fact in a way that the churches have been blind to. There is a precedent for this in the far more emotive and vastly more important area of the child abuse scandals, so, the principle has been established by the extreme case.
However, I am aware that I by clarifying my initially offensive remark I may be falling into your clever trap!
I think this is pretty much my position too, for much the same reasons. If a word is offensive, (and we know this is offensive in many quarters) we need a good reason to use it if we can make our substantial points without using the word. We'll lose something (like the easy connection between our sonship and Christ's Sonship if we speak of 'sons and daughters of God') but translation can never capture everything. Some theological points need to be addressed through exposition, not attempted to be held onto just by the use of a word.
Mark Baddeley
Michael, great post. I remember this issue came to a head for me when my wife went to Moore College in the mid 90s. I went along as the "spouse". I remember our first year orientation houseparty. I was the only bloke there who wasn't either studying at College or intending to study there. I remember the welcome speech by a senior staff member. At the end of it, he said he wanted to address a word to the "wives" (by which he meant "spouses of the students"). He quickly added "I'm using that term in the generic sense".
While I appreciated the rye sense of humour in the phrase "generic sense" (and I suspect there was some self-deprecation in it - the speaker is a deeply humble man), I nonetheless felt "marginalised". It was a really interesting experience for me. I'm a white, male, private school educated professional. I am used to being in the "dominant" group. I'm used to having the world geared around me. Suddenly, sitting there in that audience, I wasn't in the dominant group. I felt like I didn't belong. It was a very strange feeling for me. I don't think I was being "easily offended" (to quote a previous correspondent) by the use of the term "wife". I was having a very legitimate reaction.
Anyway, that event "radicalised" me. And ever since then I have been a proponent for the use of inclusive language.
Gordon
if you take offence at Michael's use of the child abuse analogy - I remember it being used by fellow students at theological college at the time protocols were tightened for working with kids... 'the bible doesn't tell us to have these protocols'/'this is political correctness'/'this will prevent good ministry from happening' ie we are caving in to culture. They were wrong but 'caving in to culture' was precisely the argument they took their stand on.
I'm with Michael on this one but also plead guilty to late 80's feminist studies where it was a massive issue.
Surely we have to preach (or do 1-2-1) as missionaries and we want to be preaching Christ faithfully into the culture. Why put unnecessary stumbling blocks before people?
In practice we select our words to suit the context, and I'm no different to that. If I set out to offend, it's generally intentional! ;-) So despite my rhetoric, I will generally only consciously use gendered language if I want to annoy other humans with a particular further end in mind (Even there, perhaps I exaggerate). So I think the reality is that my daily use of language is non-gendered. Except in discussions like this, with you guys.
Nick: Your experience is an interesting one, to be sure, but uncovers a whole 'nother and related set of questions. Your experience of being included as a 'wife' is jarring precisely because you are a man, and theologically speaking it is never appropriate for a man to be subsumed or included in language that describes a woman.
Example: It is appropriate to speak of the 'sin of Adam' in a way that assumes that women are included. But the converse is never true. It is never appropriate to speak of the 'sin of Eve' in a way that assumes that men are included with her. (If it was, I guess Paul would have had every reason to do so in 1 Tim 2).
Biblically speaking, it is often the case that language ought to be gendered and used in a way that assumes that the woman is included in the language for men. eg. "sons of God" in Romans 8—it really is very important that women, too, are "sons of God" and to change this language to "sons and daughters of God" obscures a really significant theological point about sonship in the Old Testament. I think.
So as well as being deliberately annoying, I sometimes use gendered language because I am trying to accurately explain and reflect the thoughts that I believe are there in Scripture. I would use gendered language quite deliberately, and with full explanation, as I talked my way through 1 Tim 2 or Rom 8.
Of course you might not agree with either my reasoning or my conclusions about these and related passages and my beliefs about what they are saying. But if I believe as I do, then the use of gendered language is far more fitting to my purpose than is non-gendered language. At least, fitting enough to persuade me, and as I'm the one who's talking I think I'm the only one who needs to be persuaded.
...theologically speaking it is never appropriate for a man to be subsumed or included in language that describes a woman...
You have taken a lack of biblical examples and made it into a theological rule! WEIRD. And what about Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4? They seem to form an example of just what you say is theologically speaking not appropriate - female types under which males are most definitely subsumed.
I do agree that sometimes it is the case that a certain genderedness needs to be retained and then explained in some contexts. But the very example you raised on the Anglican Media forums was entirely and provocatively UNnecessary.
I say Amen to this topic.
Blessings craig.
You have taken a lack of biblical examples and made it into a theological rule! WEIRD. And what about Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4? They seem to form an example of just what you say is theologically speaking not appropriate - female types under which males are most definitely subsumed.
Okeley Doke, apart from that one example it is never appropriate for men to be subsumed under language about women.
Even there, he is not actually talking about Hagar and Sarah, but about law and Spirit. But for the sake of discussion, I grant your example.
And it's an interesting point of view to suggest that we should only use provocative language when 'necessary'. I take it, then, that comparing child abuse to gendered language was either non-provocative, or if provocative, then necessary?
Good post Michael.
I think that there is a bad kind of gender inclusive language, whihc constricts difference within genders.
Perhaps the two issues are connected, if we have a general gender-inclusive use of language then there will be more freedom for difference within particular genders.
Don't be ridiculous Gordon - the one example makes a nonsense of your claim. I didn't even get around to 'man who is born of woman' or the whore of Babylon vs the bride of Christ (d'oh - that dumb ole Bible keeps using womanish terms to include men!)
There is also a long way between provocative and offensive. I take it you don't often use the F word when you preach, true? Why not?
Oh—you were serious?
Man who is born of woman is a statement about the facts of life.
Like Hagar and Sarah, the other examples you give (Babylon; the new Jerusalem) are allegorical in nature and do nothing to illuminate the relationship between men and women, or the language we use about that relationship.
On the F word, I take it neither of us are talking about swearing, which is forbidden in Ephesians 5.
However, your original point was about being provocative, and you seem to be saying that we should only use provocative language when necessary. But the word 'provocative' and even 'necessary' are bedevilled by vagueness of definition. That's why I asked you whether you thought the comparison with child abuse was 'provocative' or not. It seems provocative, but perhaps I've missed something.
In fact, some would even say that the comparison of a translation or linguistic decision with a heinous sex crime was 'offensive'. Most likely not me, but I'm not easily provoked.
Now you ARE straw-clutching. It wasn't an offensive or inappropriate comparison: I explained how. And since you are far too thick skinned to even mention it, I think it stands as a fair debating point.
Also, yes, I am serious, and if you don't think the feminine for the church (it's there in Eph 5 as well) fits the definition of 'subsuming a male under a female', then your application of your suddenly appearing rule is narrower than I thought. I guess you would argue that Lydia's household in Acts 16:14 (now we are not talking metaphors) was all female. Otherwise - shock horror - there are indeed males here subsumed under a living individual female. I am sure other examples could be found.
Swearing is forbidden: but why? I take it not because of deontological reasons but rather more consequentialist ones. That is, because it annoys people and gets them riled FOR THE WRONG REASON.
Hi Gordon,
Re your statement: "Your experience of being included as a 'wife' is jarring precisely because you are a man, and theologically speaking it is never appropriate for a man to be subsumed or included in language that describes a woman."
I've thought about this. What was jarring me all those years ago? I don't think it was a theological objection. Even at an unconscious level.
I think the comment "Now I'd like to address something to the wives" jarred with me for two reasons.
Firstly, the speaker was calling me a wife (because it was clear he meant "spouse of student"). That jarred. Why? Because I'm not a wife. That's all. And that's enough to jar me.
But secondly (and ironically given what I've just said), I think it jarred me because he wasn't really including me. I knew he knew I wasn't a wife. And yet that's the word he used. There I was, on the houseparty, and there was no word used to describe me. The word for my "category" - spouse of students - clearly couldn't expand to include me. So, I think I felt that I actually didn't belong in the category at all.
I hope this makes sense. But when I said it "radicalised" me - it really did, in a manner of speaking. Because suddenly I got to feel what I assume a lot of women feel when we use words like "men" to mean "people". I suspect I felt the kind of exclusion they sometimes feel. And I think I started to understand why they might feel excluded. Because if the word that is clearly used to describe the category you're meant to belong to (in my case: "spouse"; in the case of women: "people") is actually a word you feel doesn't describe you (in my case: "wife"; in the case of women: "men") then it is naturally to feel you don't belong.
Gordon, I take your point on the theological importance of some words being translated in the masculine. But, if you feel that that is theologically necessary, then I think in this culture it is incumbent on us to be very clear why we are doing that. And to be very gentle as we do it. And only to do it when it is absolutely necessary.
Thanks for your comments, brother, (or should I say “sibling”?) – you’ve forced me to get my thinking more precise (even if it’s not reflected in the clarity of this post).
Nick Ingram
Right, so if you explain the offensive comparison it's no longer offensive? Good. Then if someone can explain that gendered language is not sexist (and there are good reasons why, even if you don't agree), then that ceases to be offensive as well.
I think the Lydia's household argument is clutching at straws, actually. But I'm not going to pursue that one.
Swearing is forbidden: but why? I take it not because of deontological reasons but rather more consequentialist ones. That is, because it annoys people and gets them riled FOR THE WRONG REASON.
That's not in Ephesians 5. I put it to you that you're making that up.
oops, my previous post was responding to Michael. I only meant to sound shirty at him, not you, Nick. Cheers, sibling!
Ah-hah! I knew it was a debating point and nothing more. You weren't really confused or offended at all, were you?
As for Ephesians 5, I think there is strong case to be made for my reading: course language is forbidden because it detracts from the holiness of the community, ie, it isn't loving 5:1 etc etc.
Don't pursue Lydia by all means, but I'll add it to the growing list of counterexamples.
No offence taken, Gordon. I knew you had Jensen in your sights. :)
Ah-hah! I knew it was a debating point and nothing more. You weren't really confused or offended at all, were you?
Indeed, it was a cunning plan on my part, JJ. But I notice you neatly dodged the point, which is that offence explained is no offence (which is what you appear to be arguing).
But you weren't actually offended. You weren't even very good at acting offended.
AND I spotted this coming.
And in any case: we are not talking about a conversation between two people who have known each other for more than 2 decades and know more or less the thickness of skins involved but about talking to people who are outsiders, and pastoring those ('weaker' siblings?) inside who may stumble at unnecessarily offensive words and may not stay for an explanation.
You can't say 'nigger' for example, and then say to people, 'hang on, I didn't mean to be racist, what I meant was...'.
Well, I don't say nigger. I do make fun of Asians, but that is another story. Aidsy Lane has a theory about Asian drivers, remind me to tell it to you sometime.
And despite my bombast on this blog and elsewhere, in my actual preaching I don't ever set out to offend. Provoke, yes, but again lack of definition bedevils us on this. I talk here as if my rhetoric is Rambo, but the reality is more like J. Alfred Prufrock. In my head, anyway.
Anyway we are straying into another discussion that we've already had. The January (or might be Feb) Briefing deals in part with giving offence (which, as any good Puritan kno, is a different thing from taking offence and the distinction must by maintained) and maybe we can come back to it after we've done a bit of further reading.
By the way I don't recall ever saying that your comparison offended me! Had you thought that, it would have been amphibology on my part, but it looks as if I'm not even guilty of that.
'less than impressed' was the phrase you used. Sounded like an attempt at sounding offended perhaps?
Happy Yuletide (I wouldn't want to offend any non-Xns out there of course)
Yes, seasons greetings to you, your partner and all your significant others.
Or more offensively, may the Lord Jesus Christ, who only is the true God who will return to judge the living and the dead, grant you, your wife and your children every blessing this Christmas and into the New Year.
xoxo
;-)
GCC, 2008 AD.
Twenty-six (oops, now twenty-seven) comments and not one from the wiser sex.* I'm not sure what this silence means, but perhaps we ought to ask.
*Wisdom is a woman: Proverbs 9.1-6. Yes, I'm aware that folly is too. More examples of female representative figures?
Margaret Thatcher?
"[Are wisdom and folly] more examples of female representive figures?" rather than "[Can someone supply] more examples of female representative figures?"
Ah, gotcha. MPJ took my 'rule' off in a direction I'd not intended, and managed to make it look like a silly rule. But yes, they would be good examples, along the lines that MPJ seemed to be taking that train of thought.
Hi Michael,
I just discovered your blog (via Byron from nothing new under the sun) and have been having an interesting and enjoyable trawl through your archives. Wanted to say hello rather than lurk, but what post to do so on? So I thought I would give you a comment from the wiser sex on this post. Thanks for this post, and your fair minded attempt to understand how this appears to many women. Then, I would like it - I am an ordained female pastor in the Baptist church, and an evangelical. There, that's my colours nailed to the mast. May God bless your blogging, and I may come by this way again. Megan
Post a Comment