Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ

The Thomist 67 (2003): 579-606 INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE AND THE EQUAL DIGNITY OF WOMEN AND MEN IN CHRIST GREGORY VALL Franciscan University Steubenville, Ohio PARTICIPANTS IN THE ongoing debate over inclusive language translations of the Bible may find themselves with strange bedfellows. Those who oppose these translations include not only traditional orthodox believers but also not a few feminists. The latter group fears that inclusive language tends to soften "the harsh and intransigent message of a truly patriarchal document."1 Sherry Simon summarizes this position as follows: Inclusive language translations do not go far enough in either of the (contradictory) directions favored by feminist translators. They do not reveal the potentially woman-friendly aspects of the Bible, nor do they expose its unflinching patriarchy. They stand in ideologically ambiguous territory, seemingly provoking more confusion than they resolve.2 On the other side of the battle lines we find not only the remaining feminists and their sympathizers but surprisingly also some evangelical Protestant scholars. For example, Mark L. Strauss and D. A. Carson, who identify themselves as "complementarians " opposed to a feminist agenda, have each devoted 1 Sherry Simon, Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics ofTransmission (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 125. 2 Ibid., 129. Simon seems sympathetic with this view (which she associates with Phyllis Bird and Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza among others), but in the end she hedges her bets: "There is no single feminist approach to Bible translation" (133). 579 580 GREGORY VALL an entire volume to a vigorous defense of "moderate" inclusivelanguage translations.3 I. INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE AND REVELATION This confused situation will come into clearer focus if we consider where the various participants in the debate stand with regard to the doctrines of revelation and inspiration. More radical feminists have either dispensed with such notions entirely or significantly redefined them. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, for example, proposes that the Bible is no longer to be regarded as an authoritative "source" of revelation but as a "resource" for feminism. "Women's experience in their struggle for liberation" replaces the Bible as the "normative authority" and starting point for theology. Indeed the very notion that the Bible is the word of God is "an archetypal oppressive myth that must be rejected."4 Nicholas King, a Catholic who favors inclusive-language translations ofScripture, represents a slightly less radical position: the Bible is "androcentric and patriarchal beyond our power of remedy" but should not be abandoned altogether since, amid all the hurtful patriarchy, it contains "whispers of liberation ... for all who are oppressed."5 Presumably this is where King would locate "the revelation of God," to which he often refers. But it is not clear how such "revelation" could ever function normatively or be accessed objectively since King concludes that "the Bible is already geared to making us relativize all speech about God and 3 D. A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 11; Mark L. Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The Challenge ofBible Translation & GenderAccuracy (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 25. Complementarians (as opposed to egalitarians) "believe Scripture sets out distinct roles for men and women in the church and in the home" (ibid.). 4 Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), quotations from pp. 14, 13, and 10 respectively. 5 Nicholas King, Whispers ofLiberation: Feminist Perspectiveson the New Testament (New York and Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1998), 35. INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE 581 about Jesus; and that is what I suggest that the feminist critique of the Bible should teach us to do."6 Certainly neither Strauss nor Carson would accept King's view, to say nothing of Schussler Fiorenza's. In fact, their entire argument in favor of inclusive language is based on the belief that the Bible is the word of God and ought for that very reason to be translated as accurately as possible. They maintain that because of alleged recent changes in English usage the goal of accuracy in translation not only permits but actually requires the use of inclusive language. Strauss summarizes his position as follows: [f]hough I am a complementarian, from a...