Considering Gender-Inclusive Language

With the upcoming release of a updated NIV (already available online), the whole gender-inclusive language issue rears its ugly head again.  This morning I was reading my NLT and was curious about their inconsistent use of Messiah in the New Testament, so I looked up their principles of translation in the Introduction.

In the New Testament, the Greek Work Christos has been translated as “Messiah” when the context assumes a Jewish audience.  When a Gentile audience can be assumed, Christos has been translated as “Christ.”

Yet, in James 1 which is written to Jewish Christians, they used Christ.  Hmmm.  Why do translations inconsistently transliterate rather than translate names & titles?  Aside from that interesting bit of curiosity, I spotted the section on Gender-Inclusive Language.  Here’s some of what they say:

“The English language changes constantly.  An obvious recent change is in the area of gender-inclusive language.  This creates problems for modern translations of the ancient biblical text, which was originally written in a male-oriented culture.  The translator must respect the nature of the ancient context while also accounting for the concerns of the modern audience.  Often the original language itself allows a rendering that is gender inclusive.  For example, the Greek word anthropos, traditionally rendered “man,” really means “human being” or “person.”   A different Greek word, aner, specifically means a male.

I guess the question is “to what degree is the Scripture reflecting culture and to what degree is culture a reflection of creation principles?”  Their example is a good one.  The language has the capability to be clear, and we must honor that.  We must also remember when women are included/assumed in a general statement like “brothers.”  Most people have no problem with recognizing that and saying “brothers & sisters”, though their use of “Christian friends” is problematic.  It takes the text out of the context of the Church as God’s household and it’s members as adopted sons (and therefore heirs).  This is an example of the danger that happens with some attempts of gender-inclusive language.  It can strip the text of its context and lose meaning (as well as impart unintended meaning).

Overall, I think the NLT does a good job.  There are places a wince a tad.  But the translation is very readable (which I really can’t say for the ESV though I am using it more often these days).  I like it for a devotional Bible, but I’m not comfortable using it to teach or preach.  Yes- there is a significant difference in my mind.

Last week I began to read The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God.  In his preface, John Frame acknowledges that some women (and men) may be unhappy with his book and why he did not use gender-inclusive language (in the mid-80’s).  I find some of his arguments important for today with a much more important text- the Scriptures.

He starts with a caveat of sorts:

My practice does not reflect a belief that women cannot be theologians.  Quite the contrary.  For according to this book, everyone is a theologian!  I do believe that only men are called to the teaching eldership of the church, but the interest of this book is wider than that.

This distinction is important, and often lost on the “all or nothing” egalitarian crowd.  Women are also theologians.  All Christians are theologians (the question is whether they are good or bad theologians).  Theological study is not beyond the capacities of women.  They are fully capable of learning theology.  In 1 Timothy 2, where Paul famously forbids women to teach or have authority over a man he also says they should learn!  Learning, and teaching others (aside from men) is both encouraged and necessary.  Complementarians are often falsely accused of thinking that women are dense or incapable of ‘doing theology’.  Patently untrue.

He then gets to the question of why he’d resist the gender-inclusive movement.  He lists a few reasons of varying degrees of importance.

(1) To use “he or she” in place of “he” as a generic pronoun still sounds awkward to me.  Possibly that will change in ten or twenty years, but I am writing in 1986.  (2) The English language is complete without the new circumlocutions.  The generic use of the masculine pronoun does not exclude women.  (Look up he in the dictionary.)  Thus the new language is linguistically superfluous.  (3) Theologically, I believe that God ordained man to represent woman in many situations (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3), and so the generic masculine pronoun has an appropriateness that is more than merely linguistic.  Not that it would be wrong to replace it with “he or she” for some purposes; it would be wrong, however, to change language in the interest of a political ideology, especially one that I do not entirely agree with!  I feel an obligation to accept linguistic change when it arises out of the “grass roots,” out of some cultural consensus.  When people try to impose it through political pressure, however, I believe that I have a right, for a time at least, to resist.

He’s not done, but I thought I’d take a break there.  First is the unnecessary cumbersomeness of the new usage.  It clutters speech and writing unnecessarily.  It is unnecessary because the masculine often includes the feminine.  Some people just don’t want to accept that and would rather use more pages and more ink to feel included.  Theologically, Frame points to our differing roles in creation.  As I said above, it was not just a cultural practice but is rooted in creation (notice Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2).  There is a creation order that is reflected by the masculine pronouns in some places.  Lastly, these changes were being forced upon people by a political agenda- feminism.  It is not a grassroots change in usage, and he feels the need to resist (that was then, and he may choose to stop resisting at any time he deems appropriate.).

Here is where many evangelicals stumble with the newer, gender-inclusive translations.  They are being forced on us contrary to our theological convictions.  The NIV 2010 (or 2011) will replace the NIV 1984 and TNIV.  You soon won’t have the choice to buy the 1984 unless you find one used or search high and low.  This is why I’m more alarmed than in 2005 when the TNIV came out.  They weren’t pulling the older version.  But back to Frame’s argument concerning his book.

(5) Are women offended by the generic pronouns?  I doubt that many of them are.  Probably the ones offended are mostly “professional” feminists.  I do not believe, in any case, that women have a right to be offended, for the generic language, in fact, does not exclude them.  Furthermore, I think that the professional feminists themselves are guilty of insulting women when they claim that this language is offensive.  For they are saying, in effect, that women do not understand the English language, because they are offended by language which, according to the dictionary, is nonoffensive.  (6) Most importantly, this is not a book about “women’s issues,” and there fore I do not want to use locutions that will distract the reader’s attention, making him (or her!) think about women’s rights when I want him to think about, for example, situational justification.

He argues that the average woman is not offended by such use of language, only the feminists (and the professionals at that).  Professionals are always crying wolf to get attention to their cause (whatever it may be).  In reality they insult women by claiming they can’t understand the language.  In other words, they are creating an issue where one does not exist.  They are riling people up over unsubstantial issues.  This creates resistance for recognizing real offense (like how commonly women are generically called bitches or whores).  We must not confuse traditional use of language with denigrating speech.  They are not the same- nor do they flow from the same stream.

I like that the Translation Committee wanted to improve the NIV by making it more accurate (for instance Matthew 1:1 and John 1).  But, at times, the gender-inclusive language makes it LESS accurate.  Rather than resist the political agenda of feminism, they have at times capitulated to it.  There are many godly scholars on the Translation Team.  Like all of us, they can make wrong decisions- I think this is one of those times.  They are not to be vilified- but people can disagree with some of their word choices.

 

Advertisement