All for one or one for all: gender inclusive language

… in non-essentials, liberty says JoAnn Shade

It happened again recently in church. The scripture was read: “In him (Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of men” (Jn 1:4). “He [John] came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe” (Jn 1:7). Powerful statements of life and grace, absolutely, but there I was, wondering why it only used the word “men”. Somehow, as I write these words, it seems like a minor point in the midst of those amazing words in John 1, but I found myself feeling excluded from that wonderful passage by that gender-exclusive word.

This isn’t the first time that I’ve had this reaction. Jotted with frustration in my ever-present notebook was this thought, as we had just sung Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus: if the song proclaims “ye that are men now serve him,” does that let me off the hook? Or does it keep me from ministering in ways that I know I am called to minister?

Now I am a seminary-educated woman, and I certainly understand that when the word “men” is used, it really means “people,” just as “brother” tends to generally include sisters too. But as a person who knows my identity is that of a female, I also know what the words men and women mean in our common culture. That’s why we all laugh at the commercial on TV when the woman who is having trouble with her contact mistakenly goes in the men’s room. When she realizes where she is and what she’s done, the tag line is: “Do you need to get away?” As a female, I don’t belong in the men’s room!

Within the evangelical church there has been much discussion and dissension over the issue of gendered language. When the recent TNIV was published, it used gender-inclusive language when it didn’t change the meaning of the passage, eliminating most instances of the generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns. In that process, the editors and publishers took a beating from some segments of the evangelical church that questioned their motives and scholarship.

So I find myself wondering: does the language we use in our church settings really matter? Yet again and again I find myself convinced that it does matter. Language is important, both to me and to twelve-year-old girls in our pews. It is important to my young pastor friends who deeply love Jesus and who are committed to standing up for Christ in the pulpits and the marketplace of their communities - and who also happen to be female. While gender is a complicated issue in our culture, and perhaps even more so in the culture of our churches, the use of “people” instead of “men” seems like a no-brainer way of including all the people of God in the Body.

I’m going to pay attention. I am using the TNIV and NRSV, both gender-inclusive translations of the Scriptures. Once in a while, I will sneak in “all” instead of “men” when I do the Powerpoint for the hymns. I won’t use new songs that aren’t gender-inclusive. I plan to use more care in the music I write in order to be inclusive. And while I’m not going to make a big deal out of it, when appropriate I will raise the issue with those who need to pay attention as well.

In the end, the question of gender-inclusive language can be considered in light of the words of the 17th century Protestant pastor Meldinius: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” Or, from a more contemporary viewpoint, we have the words of David Bicker: “One of the ways of showing compassion is being sensitive to the feelings of other human beings. Let’s not contribute to the marginalization of others by our careless and inappropriate use of words.”

Writer: Major JoAnn Shade serves along with her husband as a corps officer in Ashland, Ohio, USA. She is a corresponding member of the International Doctrine Council of The Salvation Army.

6 Comments to All for one or one for all: gender inclusive language

1. Hi Major! hope you are well.

   I have to admit that I haven’t always been sensitive on this issue. I agree with you about gender inclusivity. My question is (as far as it relates to the genders that the Biblical writers use): Where do you draw the line?

   Jesus came as a man and referred to God as His Father (something author Donald Miller writes something along the lines of “I thought this was a huge marketing mistake, given the number of deadbeat dads in the world”). Should we then, as some suggest, refer to God as our Parent instead? Or maybe as both Father and Mother? And what of the account of creation, where man was created first and then woman created from his side? Is that sexist? (I know, only tangentially related, but it came to mind…)

   I am not asking these questions to be argumentative. I am genuinely interested in hearing your take (and others’ take) on this issue.

   What I think I hear you saying is pretty straightforward: where it doesn’t change the meaning of the passage. Then again, I could ask how you define what does or does not change the meaning of a given passage.

   Thanks for the article! And tell Dan I said hello.
Phil on January 26th, 2009

2. Phil…Experience has taught me the truth of what Major Shade has to say…and more. This is not merely about 12 year old girls, but also those of us well into adulthood, of both genders. I am caught wondering why with what we have to contribute, so many woman (and not just officers) are set apart from leadership (not in a good way), why are pleas can be so easily portrayed as special interest, so parochial, so narrow….Who gave the “mainstream” the right to be mainstream? Well there are a lot of assumptions built into this social construct and they are mutually reinforced by language.

   Thanks,

   Andrea
Andrea614Regent on January 26th, 2009

3. Hi,

   Very interesting discussion. I do agree with what the Major has said. Although, I have to confess, I do sometimes feel a little uneasy when I hear a lot of inclusive language (perhaps that’s just me as a man feeling my masculinity is being undermined). But I think that’s the issue. From my experience, many men feel do feel their masculinity is undermined when they hear too much inculsive language. That is something we men have to deal with. After all - God created man and women as ‘equal’ or ‘partners together’. (By the way, if you take the two accounts of creation - man and woman were created simultaneously in the first (Genesis 1) and only man first and woman second in the second account of creation).

   The other issue that was raised is equally interesting - when does it change the meaning? I would suggest that inclusive language in doctrine and biblical teaching would lead eventually to a very different interpretation of scripture (something I think is possibly well needed). I think perhaps this might be the thin edge of the wedge so to speak in getting rid of a lot of prejudice within the church and - perhaps - getting right back to the grass roots of our faith. Which I suspect a lot of people might find surprising.

   By way of introduction, I am a former Salvation Army Officer from the Australian Eastern Territory (now living in London with my civil partner). I do have ideas that many would find quite ‘progressive’. I would be happy to discuss these if the opportunity arises. This is my reason for seeking out this forum.

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme Randall
Graeme Randall on January 27th, 2009

4. Hey, Andrea. I do not deny the evidence of systematic sexism that has been imposed through the years by straining Scripture through culture, rather than seeking to influence the culture based on what Scripture really says. However, we’re not allowed to discard parts of Scripture or even, I would suggest, the way things are said, simply because they don’t suit our taste. There are some pretty hard things to swallow in Scripture.

   Graeme, thanks for the reply. (As far as the Genesis accounts go, in terms of the way narrative was told in ancient Biblical times, it is most likely that the “2nd” account of the creation story is not simply “another telling”, but rather a further, more specific explanation of one part, or some parts of, the first account. Given this information, we are still left with one sex being created first. My point was a little absurd, perhaps. I was trying to push the envelope and maybe some buttons as well.)

   I agree with what Major JoAnn has written. I was trying to take her proposition several steps further - something with which it seems from your comments you may be comfortable - into a territory of discussion that may or may not be helpful on this thread. I have read other articles which suggest we do away with masculine and feminine terms as much as possible.

   I don’t think that would be helpful.

   On a personal level, as an artist, I have found that - gasp! - I identify more easily at times with feelings, persuasions and points of view that many consider “feminine”. This has always made me suspicious of universally exclusivity in defining roles for the sexes. Having said that, there are a couple of lines I don’t think you can cross and still be true to the canon of Scripture.

   God is a Father (who chose a woman to bring His Son into the world).
   Jesus was a man (many of whose close disciples were women to whom He showed unbelievably culturally inappropriate - but nevertheless perfectly God honoring - love.)

   As I said before, this may not be the right article to carry the discussion in this vein, and I apologize if I’ve gotten off track.
Phil on January 27th, 2009

5. I have to agree with this article. I found myself getting frustrated recently when a group of women in worship sang heartily “I’m a brand new man”. I’m very careful myself when choosing songs to make sure they use inclusive language.

   Another issue this raises: Some of our doctrines use ‘exclusive’ language. HE that believeth hath the witness in HIMSELF. & that in consequence of their fall all MEN have become sinners. Perhaps its time these were officially updated to represent the inclusive nature of Jesus?
claire on January 28th, 2009

6. First of all, thank you JoAnne for your article.

   Regarding gendered language, you raise the question, ‘does the language we use in our church settings really matter?’

   In answer to that question, I would agree with you that it does. I would therefore take the view that it is right to be as sensitive as we can in our own use of gendered language, and that when new songs are written, they should be sensitive also. Thus, the situation described by Clare, might at least not occur too frequently in the future.

   However, when it comes to the words of Scripture, it seems to me that the TNIV and NRSV have gone further than they should have done, particularly with regards to their approach to the translation of generic masculine nouns and pronouns. Although you state they only eliminated these when it didn’t change the meaning of a passage, I would suggest that this is not the case and that meaning has often been subtly changed. I am not saying that they have introduced error or heresy, but in translating as they have done they have lost important nuances of meaning that were present in the original languages, nuances relating to the use of the generic masculine, nuances of ‘language’ that also matters.

   Phil queries where the line regarding gendered language should be drawn, and in my view, on this particular point they have crossed the line. Picking up further on this particular point of Phil’s, I would however see a much greater problem occurring if gender references were eradicated completely, or if ‘Father’ was referred to as ‘Parent’ etc. as this would be moving even further away from what the writers of Scripture actually wrote and intended to communicate.

   I understand and appreciate the difficulties you and others experience, as illustrated by the reading from John 1, and I also understand that there are complex translation issues involved. However, it does seem to me that the Scriptures use generic masculine nouns and pronouns as a matter of course, and this ‘use of language’ matters also. What we need to do, is not alter that usage in our translations, but understand why they wrote as they did.

   In summary then, I believe that it is right to be sensitive and flexible in using gendered language in our own use of words in personal communication, preaching or songs. But with regards to the Scriptures we need to hear what they say, as they say it, even if their use of generic masculine language does not sit easy with some of us.

   Regards

   Bernard
Bernard Martin on February 4th, 2009

Leave a comment