Most of us have now made the shift toward inclusive language for humanity, and we are learning about how pronouns matter in personal identity.
We have realized that exclusive language erases half of humanity. Using only man or mankind ignores the presence of women in biblical narratives – and in life. It makes men normative humanity and sustains androcentric privilege.
Just when we think the linguistic work is done, I pick up another book (often a theological text) that addresses or describes only men.
We do violence to women or persons who are non-binary (or other sexual minorities) when we subsume them into the conventions of exclusive language.
We know the power of naming, and Scripture reminds us of all the ways identity is carried in a name.
It is remarkable that as many women are named as there are, yet there are so many more whose names we will never know.
The contexts in which Scripture was shaped – the Ancient Near Eastern world and the Greco-Roman world of the early centuries of the Common Era – were patriarchal to the core.
The social structure was hierarchical, and men held most of the rights for inheritance, divorce and religious standing.
The language of the Bible reflects this structure, and it is not surprising that masculine imagery predominates.
Many persons today read these ancient texts as prescriptive for the roles of women and men today, and they construct a complementarian vision of male and female relationships – to the detriment of both.
What progress are we making in our language for God?
Using inclusive language for God has a powerful impact on how we view God, how we order human relations and how we perform our roles as disciples of Jesus.
Many translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version, have moved the practice of inclusive language forward by including women and sisters in the texts but have left “He” as the primary pronoun for speaking of God.
The challenge is that grammatical gender elides biological gender in the minds of many.
Far too many believe that God is literally male and that “Father language” rightly denotes God as ultimate progenitor.
In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father.
Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John.
In Mark, Jesus names God “Abba” 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times.
Amid great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary.
We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart.
Many have dismissed inclusive language as “politically correct.” However, it runs much deeper. It is an attempt to speak justly about humans, and it strives to offer a vision of God beyond gender.
Of course, our language for God is always a human projection, and we live in a world where biological identity is a key marker.
Scripture uses masculine and feminine metaphors for God, and this enriches our image of God. It does matter that we keep some personal language for God, and Scripture provides more pathways for this idea than we have pursued.
One of the reasons I have given attention to the Spirit of God in recent years is that it allows one to bypass gendered language for God.
Scripture and tradition use feminine imagery for the Spirit, yet using that imagery exclusively opens the door to exclusive use of masculine language for the other persons of the trinity.
Spirit language, however, allows us to imagine that God is beyond our anthropocentric projections, or ascribing human characteristics to God.
If anything, God is supra-personal and grounds our understanding of what it means to be personal and communal.
The God who dwells eternally in the richness of trinitarian community invites us to new ways of imagining God with us, moving us beyond our exclusively masculine vision.