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?

laurencer, you raise some very good points. Translation is a tricky business. Certainly I have a lot to learn about it, and a lot of details are confusing to me.

The writers of Scriptures, I believe, were miraculously kept for the corruption of sin, at least inasmuch as their sin would have led to distortion in God’s message. At the same, I have no illusions about their stepping outside their time and culture. The writers were very much people of their times. Nonetheless, they were carried along by the Holy Spirit in such a (complicated!) way that sin did not hinder God’s communication. Thus, we can speak of two authors of Scriptures: the Holy Spirit and the human author.

Translators are not inspired or “carried along” by the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, translations can be more or less faithful to Scripture. Hence, translators must have quite a bit of knowledge about language, original and target languages. With respect to lexicons, BDAG for Greek and BDB for Hebrew are excellent. There are also many grammars (e.g. Wallace) for syntax and sentence structure. Translations are tricky, but I believe that they can communicate savingly to readers. As I said, though, the original languages must be our guides on difficult questions because, as you said, some communication precision is lost in translations. This gets into the issue of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.

I got to go! Does this help at all?

Translators are not inspired or “carried along” by the Holy Spirit.

can we be absolutely sure about this? Who’s to say that it is not as important to God to maintain the accuracy of his words than it was for him to ensure the original scribing of them?

I’ve been watching, with interest, the direction in which this discussion has been going. As one of those involved in the gender discussion at kirstin’s church, I have found myself less concerned about the pronouns we choose to use for God, when reading the scriptures, and more about the nouns and pronouns we choose to use in our liturgies, hymns, songs, preaching and witnessing.

With regards to scripture, anton made a very good point in his initial posting when he said that, "gender references in various translations of the Bible have to be considered on a case by case basis." Our greatest liability, when it comes to understanding the original languages of the Bible, is the limitations found in our own language.

For example, Greek is such a highly defined language that when we attempt to translate it into English we immediately realize how limited our own language can be. Where else can you find four unique words (eros, storge, philia and agape) that we translate into the single English word – love.

Likewise, Hebrew is such a wonderfully contextual language that when we try to translate it into English, we can easily miss some of the layered-meaning intended for words such as shalom (which can mean peace, wholeness, completeness) as well as serve as a greeting or blessing depending on the context that it is used.

Either way, when it comes to our translation of the Bible from its original languages, we must not be so bold as to think that we can always grasp the full and absolute meaning of the author. That is the true beauty of the scriptures. They remain for us the source and norm of our faith, but come to us anew and speak to every generation.

However, when it comes to the use of certain gender references in worship such as in our liturgies, hymns, songs, proclamations, and prayers, I believe that we can certainly be a whole lot more inclusive. I see nothing inappropriate about changing various nouns and pronouns in a song lyric or printed litany, where the meaning is not change, but a greater sensitivity toward inclusively is reflected. I see nothing inappropriate about choosing more carefully our words when we reference God and others. Likewise, I believe that the church is the proper place where these discussions need to be happening. After all, we are the bearers of the gospel (good news) to the world. What a travesty if someone were not able to receive this good news, because of the way we have chosen to deliver it.

someone at church said something helpful yesterday. he said that, as a son, he identified with both his mother and his father, one of whom is fully female, one of whom is fully male and BOTH of whom were made in the image of God. it seems to follow, then, that God is both/and as much as neither/nor.

and he echoed a thought i’ve had before that it would seem appropriate to have a new word, a pronoun that indicates humanity/deity (more than “it” does), but connotes both/and/neither/nor. is there any such comparable word in Hebrew or Greek? are there even pronouns in Hebrew or Greek?

would it be appropriate to leave Scripture as it is with reference to God, understanding the Bible as a culturally-contextual and Spirit-inspired account of God’s relationship with people, but to be intentionally sensitive to gender as we create new means of praising and speaking about God? Matt is right that, regardless of our perspective on Scripture, it is not necessary that we continue to reference God as “he.”

i appreciated Janel’s comment on the idolatry of Scripture—i hadn’t thought about this issue that way before and i think that’s essentially the point mrsanniep was making. i also appreciated anton’s comments about the idolatry of others. this is a difficult issue and we must be careful to engage it without losing focus. the fact is that, no matter how comfortable we may be with the-way-we’ve-always-done-it, this issue is still very important to many outside of the church and it seems like we need a more constructive response, in words and in practice, than, “just get over it.” i feel like we’re getting somewhere here…

some questions that remain unanswered:

-how do we know that the translators of the Bible were not inspired or “carried along” by the Holy Spirit as much as the original writers?

-according to anton and janel, Scripture and the writers of Scripture were both miraculously kept from sinful distortions and very much reflective of their time and culture: what does this mean practically for our approach to God referenced as “he”?

there seems to be a lot of paradox evident in this issue and a lot of “God only knows.” i feel very much reaffirmed in the fact that our minds are not big enough to fully comprehend-well, the mind of God. what then is our best practical response going forward?

How does this issue differ, really, from the changing of Scripture by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to suit aspects of their doctrine?

How is this not the “problem” of the individual worshipper who sits in their seat fuming about God being referred to as “He” and other male pronouns and references? How is this not an issue of sweeping self-centered, spiritual hard-heartedness on the part of a minority of Christians? And yes, it’s a minority (at this point) of Christians who feel this way, as about 90 percent of all Bibles sold are not the gender-neutral ones currently available.

As a vegetarian, I’m offended by all references to animal sacrifice in the Bible. Could we find a way to neutralize those passages, too?

This issue is political. It’s not spiritual.

Adapting to societal and cultural trends is pretty typical in the ELCA, which is Kirstin’s denomination, I believe. I don’t mean that as a smear against the ELCA, but from my experience working at an ELCA church and being close friends with an ELCA pastor, it’s par for the course to drag the church into these types of 21st-century created issues.

Is there nothing spiritual about politics, mrsanniep? I think that this is different than changing Scripture to fit a doctrine because it’s about getting at the truth of Scripture, firstly. we’ve already established the difficulty of translation, and that languages do not have exactly equivalent words—so the job of the translator is to find the best words that fit the original meaning. in some instances, inclusive language will do that job better.

i think the issue boils down to whether you are trying to end up with a precise translation or an accurate one (they are not always the same). you can very precisely translate words and end up with something that is not very accurate in terms of meaning because of changes and differences in language and culture. I heard a translator from wycliffe once talk about how the phrase “lamb of God” just wasn’t making sense to the people he was translating for, because of the role of lambs in their society, and he ended up translating it as “pig of God” (or something similar) because of the role of pigs in their society—the connection was made. Not very precise, but the meaning was more accurate for them.

as far as descriptors for God, I too am very comfortable with the image of fatherly love, and I also think that there is something beautiful about the imagery of motherly love (e.g. the hen brooding over her chicks). I like the idea of God being both/and and neither/nor—an important concept—but am not comfortable with awkward phrases like “God our father and mother.” I know a pastor who never refers to God with a male pronoun (for instance, instead of “himself” in reference to God, he would say “God’s self.” That also can get awkward. I think a new pronoun would be awkward too, especially at first. maybe over time people would get used to it.

FYI: I just googled “pig of God” and this came up. I don’t know anything about the site, but it relates the same anecdote with a little more detail.

http://www.creativeministry.org/resources/cc/2004/cc040221.html

There’s an old addage that goes, “Hard cases make bad laws.” The "lamb of God’ imagery doesn’t communicate in Africa, so “pig of God” is substituted and it communicates. If “lamb” can be changed to “pig” what’s the problem with changing “himself” to “God’s self.” This seems to be how our discussion is developing, and I think it’s a mistake.

For one, the process known as “contextualization”—which seeks to adapt Biblical langauges to suit particular cultures—is dangerous. It may communicate initially, but in long term the common cultural usage of words begins to exercise a controlling influence over Biblical usage of words. The culture begins to define what the Bible says, instead of the other way around. For instance, changing “lamb” to “pig” may have some value for communication at first, but before long the meaning of “pig” in the 21st century Africa will replace the meaning of “lamb” in 1st century Palestine. The problem with contextualization is that while it communicates initially, in the long run it does violence to the meaning of Scripture.

Contextualization is a short term, “easy” fix that has long term consequences. To illustrate this point, I was talking with a Greek born and raised convert to Christianity who later became a missionary. He was converted by missionaries who found it useful to “contextualize” Scripture. When they contextualized it, they got nods of understanding. This is exciting when you’re trying hard to preach and share the gospel. Finally, a breakthrough! As this Greek convert read his Bible (in Aramaic in this case), and then studied the Bible in Greek and Hebrew with a view toward missionary activity himself, he was shocked to find that his ideas about the gospel were challenged. Reading the contextualized, Aramaic translation of his Bible, which he could make quick sense of, he had been misled because he merely attached his culture’s ideas to the words he read. In his case, some Islamic concepts had made their way into his thinking about the gospel by way of the contextualized Aramaic translation. Eventually, this convert did return as a missionary to the Middle East and spent much of his time trying to overcome Islamic notions about God and salvation. He was appreciative of previous missionary activity, but wished they had not opted for the easy solution, the quick way to get potential converts to have that “ah ha!” experience of understanding.

Translation is indeed a difficult business. One is eager to communicate the gospel. If translation is to be faithful to Scripture, however, one has to teach the Bible as God wants it to be taught. In short, this means taht the Bible has to exercise control, not the target culture.

With respect to gender issues, this means that we have to be faithful to Scripture and its use of gender specific language, and this must be done on a case by case basis. If God inspired words that intend to specify gender, we cannot change the gender to suit our culture. That having been said, there are many instances where gender is not specified, and translators have retained male references for no better reason than the Greek has a male ending. In such cases, words have male endings but are in fact gender neutral in meaning. This was common sense to the 1st century audience. So, in such cases it would be more faithful to Scripture’s intent to render gender-neutral words than specifically male words.

A few more comments that I didn’t include.

I think it is a mistake to treat Scripture one way and liturgy in another way. They are distinct, but they are also integrally and inseparably related. Scripture must inform every aspect of our worship. In worship we talk to God (cf. the dialogical principle of worship). We praise him. Thus, our first question ought to be, “What does God want?” If God has identified himself as a male with male pronouns, why would do anything else when talking to him and praising him in worship? This just makes sense to me. To do otherwise, would be like knowing that your wife loves to be called “baby”, but calling her “honey” instead because it’s more common in the culture. In a similar way, referring to God in worship as “God’s self” when God has consistently called himself “himself” seems somehow unloving.

Also, I don’t think we can appeal to cutlural differences. If God was displeased with being referred to in a gender specific way, he could have waited to reveal himself in a culture that would have referred to him differently. He could have waited for the “both/and and neither/nor” vocabulary to develop. The world depends upon God, God does not depend upon the world. Instead, he revealed himself as “he” “himself” etc. This seems to reflect a desire on God’s part to be intimate with us, and to be known in a personal way, not an impersonal way such as “God’s self” implies.

If God wanted to be known “properly” or “technically” he could at least have referred to himself here as “she” here as “it,” etc. But when God reveals himself to his people and desires a relationship with them, he consistently uses male specific words. There are, of course, mothering imagery and these should be given high honor and taken seriously. Really, we shouldn’t be surprised. If we are made male and female in the image of God, and if we as humans image God more fully as male and female (i.e. inclusively), we shouldn’t be surprised in the least to find that women (and not men only) have some qualities that God applies to himself. My only point is that our Creator knows better than we do how to think about God. He uses wonderful mothering imagery and other imagery taken from the lives and perspectives that seem to belong more commonly to women. But when he relates to us and instructs us how to think about him, he identifies himself as a male. How can we do something different—in liturgy or in Scripture translation?

I think it is a mistake to treat Scripture one way and liturgy in another way. They are distinct, but they are also integrally and inseparably related. Scripture must inform every aspect of our worship. In worship we talk to God (cf. the dialogical principle of worship). We praise him. Thus, our first question ought to be, "What does God want?"

Although this is certainly correct, you must also remember that any liturgy will always reflect the particular ethnicities, traditions, and customs of those who are worshipping. A liturgy that does not do this will eventually ceases to be relevant. Liturgy is literally the "work of the PEOPLE" and therefore reflects our best human attempt within the time and place that we exist, to faithfully worship God.

Who is to say if now is not the time for our liturgies, hymns and prayers to include a God-language that is more gender inclusive? I tend to view this issue as being more of linguistics, then theology. To suggest that the Bible somehow condemns or condones the use of certain pronouns in our present-day liturgies is simply using the scriptures as a proof-text. Similar arguments have been used (and are still being used) to perpetuate slavery, promote separation of the races and keep women from the pulpits.

I think that it’s a huge leap to imply that those who choose not to include such pronouns as he, him, or his, when making reference to God, are somehow being less than faithful to the scriptures.