Clergyman Charlie: On inclusivity
November 25th, 2007 by Charles Lamb
It is important to use non-sexist language, but it is also important to be accurate. Let me explain what I mean.
First of all, why inclusive language is important:
When we use male gender words, even when we think we’re including everyone, it isn’t always understood that way. I know one woman who refuses to be called chairperson of her group; she says she is the chairman; that chairman includes her too. I know, for her, that is true.
However, the best of example I ever heard of the inadequacy of male dominant language occurred in a New Testament class I was teaching at Niagara University. We had a woman lecturer, and she began the class by saying that she didn’t always remember to use inclusive language, so she wanted to tell the class in advance that whenever she said “man” or “men” she meant all people.
About half an hour later she asked the class to list great men in the history of Christianity. She received many answers and wrote them on the board, everything from Jesus and Peter and Paul to Pope John XXIII and Martin Luther King Jr. Finally she said, “Hmmm, you haven’t listed any women!”
One student said, “You didn’t ask for women.” At that point she said, “See, see now why inclusive language is important? Even though I specifically said that by “men” I meant all people, you subconsciously took the word to mean males only.
I do think we oppress women without intending to do so if we don’t make sure they are included in our speech, so we need to be sensitive to the issue and work at that.
But there is another side to the issue. I saw a church bulletin the other day in which the “kingdom of God” was changed to the kin-dom of God. I know that Jesus said he would call his disciples “friends,” and I also know that the Bible teaches us to regard one another as brothers and sisters. So, ok, we are kin. But the Sciptures also have a lot to say about God as King. I don’t want to lessen the majesty of God or to take liberties with the wording of the Scriptures.
There is also a tendency, in the familiar “Doxology,” to change “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” to “Creator, Christ, and Holy Ghost.” If Jesus prayed to God as Father, I think we need not be ashamed to do the same. Of course we can also pray to God with other titles as well; we don’t have to use “father” exclusively. For instance, we can pray to “God” or “Creative Spirit” or “Heavenly Parent.” We can even pray to “Thou who art Father and Mother to us all.”
If I were going to change anything in that old wording of the Doxology, it would be to change “ghost” to (Holy) “spirit,” which it meant more clearly when first written.
Now, educationally, we can remind people that God is not a human being, that He is not male-sex, but a Spirit. We certainly can teach that Jesus is God’s Son spiritually rather than biologically. And we can make sure people know that “Christ” is a title, not a name. It means “the anointed one” or the “special one” sent for God’s purpose. And what was the purpose? In the first chapter of Mark, verse 1, 15, we are told that Jesus’ message was the “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”
Sometimes I’ve even seen the wording of Jesus as “son of God” changed to “child of God.” That always sounds to me as though he is not an adult yet. He was a man, but that isn’t the important thing about him. The important thing is that he was the one who made God’s love real to us.
I hope I’m hitting a balance here. Let’s use inclusive language in our speech. We can say “all people” just as easily as “all men,” for instance. That’s the loving and just thing to do. Practice; you’ll get used to it. But let’s not minimize the fact that even though the Bible was written in a male-dominant society, the concepts of God’s reign and Jesus’ mission are never obscured by a desire to avoid male language.
I’ll be interested in your comments.
Thanks for the pic go here.
Share This
Add this to your favorites