Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 09:4 (Fall 1995)
Article: Three Reflections On Inclusive Language
Author: Eve MacMaster

PP 9:4 (Fall 1995) p. 6

Three Reflections On Inclusive Language

Is “Inclusive Language” Theologically Sound, Or Just This Year’s Fashion?

Eve MacMaster

Eva MacMaster is editor of Women’s Missionary and Service Commission Voice, an agency of the Mennonite Church, in Bluffion, Ohio. Her article first appeared in America. February 2, 1991, and is reprinted by permission.

The Church is on the defensive these days, attacked by feminists for her long history of condoning patriarchy. Much of the criticism is valid, and most denominations are working hard, as they did when accused of racism, to atone and amend for past and present sins of sexism.

Sometimes the results are commendable, as when the translators of the new edition of the Revised Standard Version correct translation errors in previous editions. When the text refers to male and female human beings, and not just males, the new RSV changes “man” to “one,” “human,” or “people.” At the same time, the translators have retained the traditional masculine pronouns to refer to God.

As a writer and editor as well as Bible reader, I welcome this moderation, for there is much pressure these days to change biblical language referring to God as “he.” The appropriate reform of sexist language is being distorted by a disturbing attack on the integrity of the Bible. Speakers and worship leaders are being urged to use “inclusive language” in hymns, prayers, and other public communication, even when doing so does violence to the language of the text.

It is true that Scripture references to God as “he” have led some people to picture God as male, even though the Bible states very clearly that God has no gender, that, unlike pagan gods, the Lord God of Christians and Jews belongs to neither the male or female sex. But as usual, after other elements in society have brought a problem into the open, the Church climbs onto the bandwagon, trading the authority of biblical revelation for this season’s politically correct fashion.

I believe that one source of the problem is a widespread misunderstanding of poetic language. The use of masculine language for God is metaphorical—figurative, not literal. We don’t fall into the trap of misunderstanding references to God as shepherd, rock, storm, lion, gate, hen, wind, yet the use of male language causes confusion. Perhaps we just can’t accept the fact that human language is incapable of containing the mystery of God. We dislike uncertainty and hesitate to admit that all our attempts to speak of God are inadequate. We also suffer from the temptation to use the Bible to defend our prejudices. One much-cherished prejudice is that God has ordained the subordination of women. S...