Apr 23
Sexing God’s family: mind your language
Although in yesterday’s post I deliberately (for the sake of concentrating on one point at a time) bracketed out the gendered language of the song “Father God…”. I was not at all surprised that the women commenting on it nonetheless zeroed straight in on the phrase “I am your son, I am adopted in your family”.
Most of the web discussions I’ve come across about gendered language seem to focus on Bible translation. While discussion of gendered language in liturgy and song covers much of the same ground, it is somewhat different in the immediacy of its in-(or ex-)clusiveness. That is, hearing the scriptures say: “so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir, by God’s own act” (Gal 4:7 NJB) is different from singing as one’s own phrase “I am your son”.
As a question of translation, there are serious interpretative judgements to be made. The overall context of Galatians suggests that Paul saw this as an inclusive use of “son”, so it is quite reasonable to do as the NRSV does and translate as “child”. Equally, because the language is dealing with concepts of relationships as they were conceived in a very particular culture, and the metaphor of inheritance in that culture, one could make a case for maintaining the strong point inherent in describing women as “sons” at that time and in that text. Either way, in reading and hearing the scriptures, we are more aware that they are ancient writings in need of translation and interpretation.
It is, I think, different in the language of prayer and worship. Surely the whole point is that we need to learn ways of speaking to God out of our lives and our culture, and not simply put on the linguistic dress of a past age. I have got used to the fact that I say words that would sound hopelessly sexist today when I’m using the 1662 BCP. (I’d rather not use it all, but am not quite brave, powerful or autocratic enough to ban it completely.) But I am aware that in using it I am drawing on the linguistic and theological mindset of past centuries. But contemporary English is significantly different. Faced with a particularly stubborn congregation who didn’t see the point of changing our liturgical language, I invited my “fellow men” to stand. The men stood, the women remained seated. I asked them how it was possible for them to go on insisting that in the phrase “sinned against you and our fellow men” they really meant women as well.
Older hymns and prayers can often be adapted. Sometimes one is faced with the decision whether a hymn will lose its integrity or meaning if so adapted. Then we must ask whether we sing it as a period piece, or cease using it entirely. But there should be no excuse for contemporary songs and prayers being so full of inappropriately and outmodedly gendered language that people feel unable to use them. Ironically some of the more egregious offenders are more recent (the last half-century) where liturgy and worship has taken a turn towards the human, our world and our relationship to God. Older material focussed much more on the praises of God, and less on human feeling and attitude. Consequently it avoided many of these problems.
Our so-called worship songs might generally benefit from more of a focus on God and less on “God and me” feelings. This is one specific area where they might benefit most strongly. But the more a song presents itself as contemporary, the more the patriarchal linguistic associations of past phrases will stand out like a sore thumb, and the same words that were unexceptional in the poetry and prose of past centuries, will sound exceptional and excluding.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Doug,
Yes the women commenting do have a concern, as you show. And because you, a man, post on this so thoughtfully, I want to say the whole concern of sexism in our language and our histories and our translations and our worship of God is not just a woman concern. Broadly, it’s a feminist one. Men and women share the concern. (BTW, Suzanne McCarthy posts today on a work of recovery that is, I think, an indictment on where we are in the church with our views). Thank you for speaking for men, and for women, and for God to be worshiped more wholly by us.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Well put. And I absolutely agree with this: “Equally, because the language is dealing with concepts of relationships as they were conceived in a very particular culture, and the metaphor of inheritance in that culture, one could make a case for maintaining the strong point inherent in describing women as “sons” at that time and in that text. Either way, in reading and hearing the scriptures, we are more aware that they are ancient writings in need of translation and interpretation.”
It’s presicely because because I’m adopted as a son according to the practices of that particualr culture that my inheritance in Christ gives me the full responsibillities and privileges of sonship. Stunning! I’d like the CBMW crowd to try to explain that point away.
Translating those passages with inclusive language would obscure that point. But a footnote explaining why “son” is retained would be helpful for people who’ve never been taught the cultural significance of sonship in first century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I agree that the whole naming God and sexing (gendering??) God’s family is tricky. This is not the least because there are some people who are happy to be part of God’s family but would rather that God wasn’t like one or both of their parents. Not all feminists find the image of Mother God particularly comforting or helpful, despite the fact that they affirm that God is not a boy’s name and that it is possible to have a personal relationship with God. I am aware of the awkwardness and I am prepared to live with it as long as we are offered a range of different names/images for/of God.
I agree wholeheartedly that there should be no excuse for contemporary songs and prayers being so full of inappropriately and outmodedly gendered language that people feel unable to use them. Some days, my response to gendered language about people is “this worship leader is insensitive” or something less polite. Other days, I feel like I just don’t belong - which, given that I’m ordained and thus have a fairly strong piece of evidence that I am considered to belong, at least by my own denomination, says something fairly damning about how it is likely to affect women who aren’t sure they do belong in the first place!
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
>Kathy,
But a footnote explaining why “son” is retained would be helpful for people who’ve never been taught the cultural significance of sonship in first century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.
It could be helpful, but in at least one ESV case (in which the translation/ editorial board consists of more than 100 men and 0 women), the footnote actually misleads. In Mt. 5:33, the context is Jesus having healed and helped a crowd of men and women when he starts preaching to them: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” the ESV translates in English Matthew’s Greek translating Jesus’s Hebrew Aramaic. So the FN on “sons” is this: “In addition, the English word ’sons’ (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because the underlying Greek term usually includes a male meaning component and it was used as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome.” Such a note almost excises the context.
(It’s tougher for the ESV translator in Philippians 4 to do this. First, the letter is directed to “all the saints” and second, the second verse of chapter 4 has Paul (with Timothy) writing directly to two women; so ESV starts verse 1 with “Therefore, my brothers [1],” and the footnote is almost embarrassingly obvious: “[1] 4:1 Or brothers and sisters; also verses 8, 21.”)
>Judy,
You make a good point. Feminists all do not need to paint God necessarily with a big brush as mother only, or even as mother also. I do think that even the ESV translators have not been able to get around God’s self proclaimed plurality: “Let us make . . . in our image . . . in the image of God . . . male and female he created them” (Gen 1:26-27).
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Beyond Words, I am surprised at your claim that
There is nothing in the biblical text to say that Christians’ adoption as sons and daughters of God is according to any particular legal model. It has of course been argued that Paul had certain Roman customs in mind - although I don’t see why he couldn’t have had Greek or Jewish ones in mind instead. But in any case this is an analogy. Our spiritual adoption is not according to any human legal system but according to the justice and love of God which transcends them all. And it is equally for men and women.
TNIV has a footnote of the kind you are asking for, at Romans 8:15:
The problem is that this footnote is not necessarily accurate. Indeed, Ann Nyland, in her note on Romans 8:23 in The Source New Testament, claims to have proof that it is not, that the word in question refers to Greek adoption law and is not gender-specific.