catapult magazine

just a quick intro to a topic i’ve been meaning to post about for a couple of days now…some folks at our church have been discussing what to do about gender language in liturgy, hymns, Scripture, etc. as it refers to God (ex. “seek the Lord while He may be found”).

does anyone have any thoughts on this or want to offer arguments on either side of the debate?

I do!

I think Scriptures are our best guide in this debate. Scriptures are their own best interpreters. We can rely on them inspired by God and profitable for correction and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). Because they are not the word of men but “the word of God” (1 Thess 2:13), we should have due caution when translating it.

Gender references in various translations of the Bible have to be considered on a case by case basis. The basic problem is that the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages have gender specific endings, some of which specifically indicate male, female, or neuter (like the word for mother, which clearly refers to a female), and others of which do not intend to specify gender (sort of like the older reference “man” for humankind). As I see it, there are three basic cases we have to consider: gender references that should be kept, those that should be made more inclusive, and those that are uncertain.

1) Some gender references should be kept. God has sovereignly chosen to use certain gender specific references to communicate to us. Jesus instructs us, for instance, to pray, “Our Father, who art in heaven…” Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man; he is called the Son of God. In these cases we are not free to identify God in another, less gender specific way. We cannot refer to him by some other relationship, such as Mother and Daughter, nor can we call God, who has no gender of course, “It.” God has made it clear to us how we ought to call upon him, and He gets to choose, not us.

2) Some gender references should be made more inclusive. The Greek anthropos certainly has a male ending and has for that reason often been translated “man,” even though it can refer broadly to a person or human being. Because the Greek in such cases clearly refers to neither man nor woman, we ought to be more inclusive, and, agreeing with the original language and being mindful of the times in which we live, we ought to translate “person.”

3) In some cases, it’s not as clear whether God intends for us to use specific gender references or not. Sometimes we are called the “children of God” and other times we, though males and females, are called the “sons of God.” I think in some cases there is good reason to retain “sons of God” even though it may not be as inclusive as desired. For one, the Bible clear intends “sons of God” to be understood as the entire Church, men and women. Secondly, the term “sons” communicates in a way that “children” does not. In the original context, sons are those with priveleges; “children” are those who may or may not have priveleges. In calling even daughters “sons” God communicates that we certainly have priveleges in Christ. We have an inheritance. God meant to communicate this to us, and so chose that, whether men or women, the Church would be called “sons of the living God.” I don’t think we’re free to change such gender specific references to suit the world in which we live. We fear God, not men.

However, there are times when God does not intend us to think of one gender or another. Where we are free, we should try to be inclusive. Where we are not free, we cannot be inclusive, lest we displease our heavenly Father, whom we are eager to please. Nonetheless, in our explanations (Bible studies, preaching, conversation in the hall ways, etc), we can with great joy affirm that there is now neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ (Gal 3:28).

In short, I think we should be cautious on this issue. As Paul cautions on another issue, “Do not be decieved: God is not mocked” (Gal 6:7).

Thank you for your well-thought out reply, Anton. I enjoyed reading it.

This issue seems really silly, to me – silly, that is, that there are people who actually waste their time on this. There are bigger and better things to be done in the kingdom of God. I personally think that the kinds of people who make this an issue have their own issues to work through – spiritually and psychologically – and are mistaking their problems for some inadequacies in Bible translation.

I KNOW there are posters out there who will jump on me for saying that. That’s alright. I had to say my piece, but have no desire to waste more time debating the merits and demerits of such ridiculousnes that plagues Christianity today.

I don’t agree with the implication by mrsanniep that this issue is not worthy of focus in the kingdom of God.

I do think that sometimes people and churches seem to get caught up in the pc-ness of this and other issues, but it is definitely, definitely important for churches, communities, and individuals to deal well with gender. (The operative word being WELL.) Gender is a big, complex part of who we are as humans. Issues of gender affect everybody—whether spiritually, psychologically or otherwise. Christian communities ought to be places for people to confront and deal with these issues, as scripture does have a lot to say (on many levels) about gender. In my experience, I have not seen many churches or communities dealing with issues of gender well (or at all), which has contributed to a great deal of pain and confusion for individuals AND churches.

Anton gave a lot of good insight as to the written language of the Bible. Personally, I am wary of churches who change ALL language to be gender-neutral—I would prefer to see an open and ongoing dialogue about what sorts of thoughts/feelings/problems are brought up by gender-specific language, and to see a community actively working to bring healing and understanding to its members.

sometimes i feel the same way as mrsanniep and i’m annoyed that it’s even an issue. i grew up with God as “He” and i’m quite comfortable with it. God as Father is comforting to me because the thought and presence of my own father is comforting. it irritates me to have a consciousness of gender references now. i don’t want to notice it. it distracts me from worship and it seems like our church should be putting its energy into helping the working poor in our community or figuring out how to start an artist-in-residence program instead of worrying about what pronoun we should be substituting for God.

however, i know that people close to me are struggling with the issue and, as much as i want to sometimes, we can’t just ignore it. i wonder if this issue will cause some temporary discomfort that will eventually lead to a better collective understanding of the nature of God. i hope so.

some specific things that have come up in this on-going discussion:

-how are our languages, developed by fallible human beings, adequate to convey the Word of God purely? is there something strange about substituting a pronoun for the holy name of God in the first place?

-something my husband came across at his Mennonite College is an idea of the original Anabaptists that the Word is Christ and the Bible is the account of the Word. what implications does this have for the discussion? on what basis is this idea condemned or accepted?

-what are the consequences of not dealing with this issue in some way? how should we be sensitive to those who have deep, firsthand experience of broken human male-ness?

i don’t think i’ve ever had such a neutral feeling about an issue before. there are various people i highly respect who think very differently about gender in the Bible. however, given my position at our church, personal relationships, and the fact that we’ll be discussing it soon at church in some larger forum, i know i/we need to come to an intentional decision. this is the thought and fact-gathering pre-discernment stage, so all thoughts and ideas are encouraged. thanks for your help on this.

Call me a semantic bully, but in regard to this issue, I think it is important to keep in mind that language and meaning are intimately connected. Employing outmoded usages of words or phrases, or using sloppy or imprecise terminology is often misleading at best and a stumbling block at worst. I must confess that it irritates me when people say “man” when they mean “human.” If they mean “human,” why not just say so? This doesn’t mean that I think poetry or prose from days gone by should be revised to fit contemporary usage or that scripture should be translated loosely. Taking culture, context, and intent into mind, however, I think there are times when it is appropriate to translate scripture inclusively—especially when it come to pronouns used to describe people (rather than God). When it comes to pronouns used for God, I am perfectly comfortable with “he” though I do not consider God “male.” There is richness to gendered language. I also really like the image of God as father. But I also appreciate feminine/matronly imagering employed in various parts of scripture that describes God. Thus, I think both to be faithful to the thrust of scripture and to honor the image-bearing-ness of both genders, we should use gendered language in an inclusive way. This doesn’t mean striving for neutrality or generic terminology. The quest for androgeny has led us down marred and destructive paths as a society, and I don’t think the church should follow suit.

If getting hung up on this is indicative of stunted growth or pathology, then it seems to be of the collective variety. I agree with Kristin that gender affects our lives in very influential ways. It’s part of the air we breathe. Certainly there is much mystery and confusion regarding how, but I don’t see how making it a non-issue makes the baggae go away -at least not in a healthy way. And mysogyny is real baggage that all of us deal with. Sometimes we women are the biggest perpetrators (myself included). Appreciating the dignity, gifting, honor and equality of both genders is part of our calling as Christians, I believe-as is appreciating the the distincitiveness, mystery, and beauty of gender itself.

-how are our languages, developed by fallible human beings, adequate to convey the Word of God purely? is there something strange about substituting a pronoun for the holy name of God in the first place?

-something my husband came across at his Mennonite College is an idea of the original Anabaptists that the Word is Christ and the Bible is the account of the Word. what implications does this have for the discussion? on what basis is this idea condemned or accepted?

-what are the consequences of not dealing with this issue in some way? how should we be sensitive to those who have deep, firsthand experience of broken human male-ness?

1) Historically, Christians have affirmed the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture (in the original manuscripts). Christians have affirmed plenary inspiration, meaning that God inspired not merely the ideas, but each individual word. We don’t understand how this works entirely, but God does. If we believe that God is sovereign and in control of history, we can rest assured that God superintended not only the process of inspiration but even the development of language in history—all to suit his communicative purposes. Believing this, we should not try to change the words he chose. What this means, I think, is that we should not question the rightness of using pronouns to identify God or the ability of human languages to communicate what God meant to communicate. I know this description of inspiration is a little simple, but I hope it helps.

2) As I understand him, Barth also distinguished the Word from the Bible, the Bible only being an account of God’s Word. Barth made this distinction so that the German liberals would stop sitting in judgment over Scripture and bend the knee to it, but sadly, many have used this argument to run roughshod over the Bible. Since the Bible is only an account, and not the “very word of God”, it is also potentially in error (even Barth admitted this somewhat). Using this idea, some have stood again in judgment over Scripture, finding error wherever they found ideas objectionable. I think the grounds for rejecting this idea is in God’s Word, that is, the Bible. In the Gospels, Jesus makes arguments from the OT that are based one a single word. In other words, if one word were changed in the OT, his argument would be disproven. Yet, not even his opponents thought to question the validity of arguments based on a single word. This means that Jesus and his opponents had a high view of Scripture, trusting each word in it. This high view helps us to understand that when Paul says all Scripture is God-breathed, he means that not only the ideas but also the very words are inspired and authoritative.

3) I think the consequences of not dealing with gender issues is that the church will give offense to our gender-conscious culture where the Bible does not. Paul asks, “Is it [giving offense] worth the sake of the gospel?” In some gender-laden cases, it clearly is not. In other cases, it certainly is. Even though he attempted to be all things to all people, he was willing to offend others. He put God first, his human audience second. With respect to gender issues in God’s Word, this means giving serious consideration to God’s will first—What does God intend here by inspiring these specific Greek/Hebrew words?—lest we slip into loving our neighbors first and God only second.

From my understanding of the history of Biblical hermeneutics, “inerrancy” as a term and concept is thoroughly modern and post-Enlightenment. It arose out of the fundamendalist/modernist debate of the late 19th and early 20th century in the face of deconstructionist biblical criticism. Belief in inerrancy as a litmus test for orthodoxy would have been completely foreign to the early church. Celebrating the primacy of Jesus as “Cristus Victor” by his vindication over the grave, the early church approached Scripture as the testimony concerning the Christ, the word. They affirmed the veracity of Scripture because of its apolostolic authority and testimony to the Gospel story, not because they believed it was the literal, inerrant word of God.

It would do us well, in my estimation, to recover this notion of Scripture instead of making Scripture into an idol. Certainly Scripture is fully authoritative, but it was also written in a particular context and culture, and we run the risk of missing many a nuance if we view Scripture in a vaccuum. I’m cetainly not advocating taking a pen or scissors to the Bible to refashion it into something that sits right with me. It is as it is. At the same time, when we look at it from rationalistic, literalistic, dogmatic, propositional lenses, we aren’t treating it fairly either.

And if we were to assume that the Greek and Hebrew terminology itself is the literal word of God, wouldn’t that prevent translation, since something is always lost in translation—every translator being a traitor?

Janel, if using the term “inerrancy” necessarily involves oneself in “rationalistic, literalistic, dogmatic, propositioinal lenses,” then it can be set aside. I guess I fail to see how the term necessarily implies those things.

At any rate, I don’t think the position I put forward involves those things. I tried to show that (however we describe it) the Bible is our best guide. Jesus made arguments based on a single word. On this basis, I think we can rest assured that every word in Scripture is inspired and authoritative.

Do you still think this turns Scripture into an idol? Is it rationalistic? Does it view Scripture in a vacuum? I guess I’m just not tracking with you.

Arguing that each Greek and Hebrew word is the word of God does not preclude translations. Other languages communicate what God intended very well. Even when translated the word of God is the power of God unto salvation of all who believe. Still, we ought to give the original languages priority over translations when asking difficult questions, like gender inclusivity.

translation can be very tricky, though. for example, the greek word [i:8620300fbc]aphiemi[/i:8620300fbc] is usually translated “to forgive.” but in just the book of matthew it is also translated as the following: let it be, consented, leave, give, let, left, leave, left, neglected, neglecting, deserted, wait, breathed his last.

i’m just throwing this in to the mix because it shows, to a very small extent, the leeway inherently involved in translation work.

preface: i’m not attempting to suggest that scripture is not God-breathed . . .

if we believe that all people are born into sin, into a totally depraved state of being, does it not follow then that pieces of scripture would have been corrupted by the author’s sinfulness? is the authorship of perfect scriptures a miracle that allowed each author to step outside of his sinfulness while writing? i’m not suggesting that couldn’t be the case; i’ve just never heard that case made before.

following this line of thinking, would it not have required a miracle for each translator to step outside of his/her sinfulness while translating? to step out of cultural binds?