Creativity, Writing
Rev Gav
Should we use inclusive versions of the Bible?
Luke 11.1-2
He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” So he said to them, “When you pray, say:
Father, may your name be revered as holy.
May your kingdom come.
Here is one of those questions that appears binary — i.e. that has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer — but I think the answer is a little more complex, and if I am honest, as a pastor and teacher of the Bible, it is a bit of a minefield!
The Bible, as a collection of writings written by multiple authors, spanning hundreds if not thousands of years is, broadly speaking, patriarchal. As far as we are aware, nearly all the writers were men who were writing in the context of a male-dominated society where women were subjugated and slavery was practiced. I hesitate to use the word misogynistic because the patriarchal nature of society was not deliberately and purposefully anti-women. As within all cultures, yes, at times, women were objectified, harassed, and denied human rights, and we would describe this as sexism, however within most Greek, Roman, and Jewish societies, women were also protected, honoured, and valued. It was a cultural patriarchy — a system of society, religion, and governance controlled by men.
Today, we recognise that facets of ‘biblical’ societies were incompatible with our contemporary ideas of equity, equality, and inclusion. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” meaning that all humans are to be treated equally and equitably, and deserve the same respect, dignity, rights, and opportunities. So, should we change biblical texts to be inclusive in line with our contemporary ideals?
A friend of mine recently berated me for referring to the prayer Jesus taught his disciples as the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ because, of course, ‘lord’ is a masculine title and he thought I should be using inclusive language. The title ‘Lord’s Prayer’ comes from the question asked by Jesus’ disciples, found in Luke 11.1, “Lord, teach us to pray?” Yet, the writer(s) of the Inclusive Language Bible retain the word Lord when used of Jesus because Jesus was born male and adopted he/him pronouns.
My fear is that if we iron out every reference to the maleness of Jesus and the way the Trinity is described, we might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In Jewish culture, your identity was in whose son you were, hence, for example, James and John are described as the ‘sons of Zebedee’ and why the gospels include Jesus’ lineage. We know that Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, was not on the scene when he began his public ministry, but Jesus claimed to be God’s Son — i.e. that his identity was found in God being his father, and by extension, Jesus himself called us ‘children of God’ for we all have the same heavenly father. If we change all references to ‘son of the father’ to ‘child of the parent’ it loses the context of historic, Jewish, cultural identity.
Now, please do not get me wrong! God is without gender, and I rarely, if ever, refer to God as ‘he’. I am simply explaining that the father/son metaphor has a special place in Jewish culture and history as it pertains to identity, and that this is an important biblical concept. To this end, in line with the Inclusive Language Bible, I too retain these references when quoting passages from scripture, however, when explaining the Bible using my own words, I will tend to use inclusive language, preferring, for example, the word ‘sovereignty’ over ‘kingdom’ or ‘lordship’.
But what about using inclusive language when the Bible writers refer to people? It is true that Paul, for example, wrote to his ‘brothers’ in Christ, and most Bible scholars recognise that this was a cultural convention and translations such as the NRSV translate ‘brothers’ to the more inclusive language of ‘brothers and sisters’. Yet, for those of us who are, for example, NB (non-binary) or bigender or intersex, we can still feel left out, and it is no betrayal of the text to replace the word ‘brothers’ with ‘siblings’ or ‘children’.
So, to summarise. If I am quoting the Bible for study, I will, for the most part, use a close or literal translation of the original Greek or Hebrew with perhaps some minor adjustments to titles or pronouns if they do not misrepresent or distort the textual meaning, or cause us to miss some contextual element which might help us better interpret the text. When I talk about God or the Bible, well, I use as much inclusive language as possible! What we must not do, is change a historical document simply to suit our modern-day sensibilities or political correctness! We are intelligent enough to recognise the patriarchal nature of the societal and cultural contexts of the Bible without having to collude with it.
Do I sometimes wince when I hear or read Bible passages being directly quoted that have been stripped of all gender appropriations? Yes. Do I sometimes wince when I hear people refer to God as he/him? Yes. Do I sometimes change pronouns and titles in biblical texts when they are used for collective, community worship? Yes.
We are an inclusive church who worships an inclusive and genderless God, and we have an inherited religious text that contains cultural gender bias. We know it, recognise it, and own it, but we don’t collude with it!
Amen.
Photo by Fredrik Solli Wandem on Unsplash
and then