Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 

Isn’t it odd that language touted as inclusive excludes so much? Not only does it exclude males, but females too, individuals are excluded in favor of general plurals and time honored titles and phrases are excluded in favor of new neutral constructions.  But the question has to be asked about how helpful inclusive language is to the church and to the art of Bible translation if what gets excluded is the person and work of Jesus Christ? 

In the debate over whether or not to use inclusive language in translating the Bible most scholars and Bible students can agree that in most of its language for humanity the Bible, due to the constraints of the original languages which always assign a masculine ending to any group of people that includes at least one male person, is often addressing mixed groups of people when it uses a masculine plural.  So we can not only fairly, but more accurately, translate a verse like 1 Corinthians 15:1: “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.”  Paul is obviously addressing the whole church there in Corinth.  He has given instruction specifically to men and to women in the church and so he expects them all to be listening to this letter which would have been read in a worship service with the whole congregation present, men, women, and children.

At the same time the rendering of a text like Psalm 15, and indeed all the Psalms that speak of a righteous individual into a neutral plural reference presents a significant shift when it comes to interpretation.  Psalm 15 answers the question, “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary?  Who may live on your holy hill?”  with the affirmation that “He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong….”  At first look one wonders what could be wrong with translating this text as does the New Revised Standard Version, probably the most well accepted inclusive language translation, to read, “Those who walk blamelessly and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends, nor take up reproach against their neighbors;….”  Surely this neutral plural includes all people, men and women who could dwell in the presence of the Lord.  The problem here is that this inclusive language excludes the possibility of a Christological interpretation.  In the masculine singular this Psalm clearly points us to Jesus Christ who is the only individual whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, etc..  Those who read this Psalm immediately recognize their inadequacy and are pointed to the only one who could fulfill these requirements.  Jesus Christ is the only perfect sinless one, and he has opened the way for us to ‘dwell in the sanctuary and live on God’s holy hill’ by covering us with his righteousness.  If we are in Christ then our lives are taken up in his perfect life and sacrifice.  We dwell in the sanctuary of God when we are in Christ.  The neutral plural of the NRSV translation turns a Psalm of Christological grace into one of hopeless legalism.  Christ is removed from the picture and it is up to “those” to find in themselves a blameless walk and to do what is righteous.  There is no hope of the one blameless one who cannot be shaken, but only an impossible demand of perfect righteousness to which we could never measure up.  The neutering of this Psalm leaves the sanctuary of the Lord empty, the holy hill deserted, and the people it tried to include forever shut out.

In addition, attempts to be inclusive with texts like Daniel chapter 7 and the book of Ezekiel obscure an obvious link with Jesus who takes for himself the title “Son of Man.”  In order to be gender inclusive the NRSV has Daniel describing his vision of the last judgment and rule of the Lord over all the earth as, “I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven.”  Instead of saying, “I saw one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven.”  In Ezekiel the NRSV scholars opted to render the address of God to the prophet as “mortal” (cf. Ezekiel 2:1), rather than, “son of man”.   Again, at first glance these changes seem beneficial, they are a fair translation of what the original language means and they include the whole scope of humanity.  But what is excluded?  Here again the Christological reference becomes lost in translation.  The words Jesus uses most often to refer to himself are “Son of Man.” Since he uses it as a formal title the NRSV translates it “Son of Man” in the gospels, but the entire Old Testament weight and meaning of that title is lost, unless one is a voracious footnote reader.  The link with Jesus and the Ancient of Days and his coming and the judgment of the earth in the book of Daniel is obscured because of the change in language.  In the same way, the link to the prophetic office that Jesus fulfilled is weakened by the lack of the title son of man for Ezekiel—who, let’s face it, was a man, as was Jesus.  So the whole gamut of humanity gets included in the new translations of Daniel and Ezekiel, but in the process a rich background to the title Jesus claims for himself, the Son of Man is excluded and our understanding of who he is and his work is impoverished.  This is perhaps not so much a deficiency of inclusive language as it is consistency of translation, but it appears that the attempt to be inclusive has led to the sacrifice of the continuity of the witness of scripture.  One has to question the suitableness of language used to translate the Bible in which humanity gets wider scope but Jesus is diminished.  

The Use of Neutral Language for God is a Veritable Mine Field

Perhaps the controversy surrounding the use of inclusive language in Bible translation is nowhere more heated than where language for God is concerned.  The use of neutral language for humanity is not without its pitfalls, as has been discussed briefly and inadequately above, but the use of neutral language for God is a veritable mine field.  Here again the question must be, ‘Does what is gained outweigh what is lost.’  A good case study would be the latest advertisement for the Churchwide Gathering of Presbyterian Women to be held this summer.  The theme, “Celebration! God’s Word—Light for the Journey,” was inspired by Genesis chapter one and the first few verses of the Gospel of John.  The translation of both verses used in the promotional materials eliminates all male pronouns.  I do not know if the translations come from a particular version of the Bible or not since none is referenced.  In the verses from Genesis the elimination of pronouns creates no great difficulty other than awkward repetition.  The verses from John’s Prologue to his Gospel however, presents us with another case where what gets sacrificed is essential to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The translation of the first, third and fourth verses of John’s Gospel being used to promote the PW Churchwide Gathering reads like this, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God… All things came into being through [God], and without [God] not one thing came into being.  What has come into being in [God] was life, and the life was the light of all people.”  Whoever translated this verse for the PW material chose to substitute the word “God” for every instance of “him” in the text.  In the original Greek the word used in each of these instances is autos which means, “him,” it is a masculine singular pronoun.  To translate this word as “God” is unjustified if we are looking for a faithful translation since not only is that not what the word means, it is not the proper referent in the text.  The autos of the text is a referent to logos, not theos.  The ‘him’ here is the Word, who is God as John tells us, but the primary person John is speaking about in the text is the Word—he is describing the person and work of the second person of the Trinity and his relation to the Godhead—he is God and here’s what he does.  To translate all the pronouns as “God” flushes the distinct persons of the Godhead represented here from the text and leaves us with a bland monotheism which is exactly the opposite of the truth about God that John is expounding in this passage. This translation in its attempt not to offend, offends the purpose of the author himself. This ‘inclusive’ language excludes the distinct persons and their roles from the understanding of God that is one of the main points of John’s prologue.  

In rubbing out the distinction of persons in the Godhead the ‘inclusive’ translation excludes the reality of the incarnation.  Jesus was after all incarnate, made flesh, as a male person.  Why on earth would it be wrong to use male pronouns when referring to Jesus? He was a man.  To translate all the male pronouns in this text as ‘God’ is to super-spiritualize what John was making concrete.  The Word, Jesus, was not an immaterial spirit being.  In verse 14a John tells us, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”  The Word is God that is true, but the Word is also flesh that is true too.  Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human.  To eliminate one or the other is to eliminate our salvation and the most profound glory of God manifest in his work in Jesus Christ to take up the humanity we could not save and redeem us by the mighty work of his grace through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. God was the only one who could do the work of salvation, and it was human beings who needed saving, so Jesus the God-man is the only way to be saved.  The translation of these verses from John’s Gospel offend the author’s purpose and insofar as it communicates that the Word was God only, it excludes everyone on earth from the salvation that is possible only in the incarnate Jesus Christ.  

It is true that God’s Word is light for the journey, but one has to wonder what road our attempts to please people and cater to their overly fragile sensibilities will lead us down. When our inclusiveness excludes Jesus Christ, then we have made an idol that needs to be dismantled as much as the idolatry of sexism needs to be.  In this case the attempt to be inclusive has in fact excluded the person we should seek most to please.  May he have mercy upon us.