This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article was downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where other articles on similar themes are available.

What is Lost?

Answering Concerns About Inclusive Language

My article, "Am I Wrong Because I'm Politically Correct," (the standard, October 1997) raised some concerns about inclusive language in Bible translations and the BGC Affirmation of Faith. I would like to clear up some misunderstandings.

Revising English is not changing God's Word.

God and his meanings don't change, but language does. Inclusive translations--and our revised Affirmation--seek to better convey ancient meanings through current English.

Updating translations always creates the possibility of confusion--and illumination!

In an article responding to mine, Pastor Darryl Knappen posed a hypothetical Sunday school class situation in which two readers each have Bibles labeled NIV, but which contain differing wording due to the inclusive language editions. Pastor Knappen cites Acts 1:11, where the old NIV speaks of "men of Galilee" but the NIVI refers to "Galileans." He says the Greek word used (aner) means men and is therefore mistranslated by the NIVI. He then asks how students would be able to discern which translation was correct!

The problem is not really all that complex, since even the Colorado Springs Guidelines note that aner doesn't always mean "males." My advice to the teacher would be to have the students compare each Bible's copyright date. The latest NIV would be the most accurate--if overreaction had not prevented its publication. But ultimately, context must guide translators as well as readers -- even in Sunday school classes.

Rightly used, inclusive language doesn't sacrifice meaning for gender neutrality.

Inclusive language aims at gender accuracy, not neutrality. It clarifies who a given word or statement includes, elucidating its intended meaning.

Either "man" is inclusive or it implies exclusive male priority.

If "man," meaning "humanity," is inclusive--and even opponents of inclusive language agree it is--then inferring exclusive male privileges is contradictory. Those who make this inference (that's all it is), demonstrate how misleading generic-masculine language is and why clarification is necessary. Adam coming from 'adama (earth) does not mean God wanted soil to rule humanity. Genesis repeatedly shows that first born does not equal first place.

Pluralized statements don't sacrifice individualistic meanings or personal responsibility.

English readers understand that plural statements--like "they that wait upon the Lord" and "we have been justified by faith"--apply to themselves personally. No one suggests that "you (plural) have been saved by grace through faith" means the faith of others exempts us from having to believe individually.

In English, using "children" conveys what Paul meant by "sons."

We all agree Paul included women as "sons" (Galatians 3:26-29). Since our culture doesn't attach inheritance to gender, "children" carries Paul's meaning and duplicates his inclusive intent. More problematic are interpreters who understand that women are "sons" yet deny them equal rights as sons!

Inclusive language needn't lead to awkward renderings.

Opponents often choose the worst constructs as examples. Though habits are difficult to break, inclusive language can be smoother and more concise.

If an interpretation is wrong, should translators "preempt the debate" about that view?

John Piper asked this in the January/February issue of the standard.

Most of us would welcome translations that preempt wrong views--as an improvement in clarity.

Yet after agreeing that verbal inclusivity can make translations more accurate, Piper complained it also makes his view "impossible to see in English," admitting his whole theology of gender becomes lost.

Piper's remarkable admission should give us pause. To depend on English translations that ignore the full, inclusive meanings of words seems desperate to me.

I would ask if anything lost by clarification is really a loss at all?

_________________________________________________________

rev. 02251999