Words. I love words. Words are my most important tool. I
use WORDS to communicate the WORD. You do too.
Words can be funny though. I was in airports a couple of
times this past week. The place of departure is...the terminal,
as though something is about to end. The boarding procedure
always begins with what is called "pre-boarding" for people with
small children or who need extra time. How can you pre-board
anything? You either board or you don't. At the end of the
flight, the stewardess will announce, "We are making our final
approach to Buffalo." Is the implication here that other
approaches were tried which were not successful, and we are now
in the final one? If that fails, what do we do next? Maybe we
become terminal.
Medicine does it too. Have a prescription filled and you
might be instructed to "take one pill four times a day." The
only way you can actually do that is to chop up a pill into four
equal parts. Should the prescription not read, "take four pills
a day?" And of course, we still have that old conundrum as to
why we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?
English is a funny language. What about plurals? If the
plural of mouse is mice, is the plural of spouse SPICE? One ox,
two oxen; one fox, two FOXEN? The manager of a large city zoo
was drafting a letter to order a pair of animals. He sat at his
word processor and typed the following sentence: "I would like to
place an order for two mongeese, to be delivered at your earliest
convenience." Again he stared at the screen, this time focusing
on the new word, which seemed odd. Finally, he deleted the whole
sentence and started all over. "Everyone knows no full-stocked
zoo should be without a mongoose," he typed. "Please send us two
of them."(1)
This interest in words this morning is prompted by some
controversy that you may have heard or read about concerning a
new edition of the New International Version of the Bible which
we use here in our pews. It is called TODAY'S NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION and, according to the publishers, it was "produced to
meet the ever-growing spiritual needs of today's generation of
believers - as well as to help nourish the next generation of
believers - by offering a Bible that faithfully communicates the
timeless truths of God's Word."(2)
The issue for 21st century Bible translators is inclusive
language - in other words, where in previous generations a text
might have said "men" when the clear meaning was male and female,
the translation is adjusted by saying "men and women" or "people"
or "humanity." The effort was made to insure that none of us is
slighted because of an inappropriate or incorrect choice of
words.
This issue has been around the church for some years now.
When I was in seminary, there were a few women in my class
(although not nearly the number that you find these days), and
some of them were absolutely militant about the continued use of
NONinclusive language. It was their constant topic. It seemed
as if they had no other interest in life. Frankly, their
harangues got OLD, and I tired of hearing them. But one day,
after another of these particularly odious diatribes, I asked the
opinion of one of my female classmates who rarely ever spoke
about the issue. Libby responded, "Oh, I don't say much about it
(there are lots of other things to worry about)." Then she
paused and quietly added, "But, I have to admit, sometimes all
the male language makes me feel uncomfortable." Hmmm. To be
honest, I had heard so much on the subject from some of the
others that I did not care what they felt. But Libby? If it
mattered to her, it mattered to me, and from that moment on, I
was more careful. I have used inclusive language in my preaching
ever since (and you probably never even noticed, did you?). You
see, the last thing I want to do is to make any of the Libby's of
this world uncomfortable when I have it in my power to do better.
Another issue is the use of gender-specific pronouns in
reference to God. Most all of us grew up in a Christian
community which had no difficulty referring to God as a male.
Indeed, some want to hold on to that imagery come hell or high
water INCLUDING the TNIV translators, and I am sorry about that.
They could have done better.
As to how that masculine image of God came to be, remember
that our Christian understanding of God grew from the fertile
linguistic soil of Hebrew, a language in which EVERYTHING is
understood as either male or female - not only people and birds
and animals, but chairs and tables and papers and books -
EVERYTHING. Beyond that, that growth took place in a society in
which males were totally dominant - men had all the rights; women
had none. For ancient Israel to have referred to their God as
female (which would have been their only other choice,
considering the language) would, in that day, have been
unthinkable.
By the time of Jesus and the New Testament, the dominant
language among the Jewish people was Aramaic, not a dialect of
Hebrew, but a close cousin. Again, there was no way to describe
ANYTHING as other than masculine or feminine - everything was
described in either male or female terms, even things that are
obviously neither. For Jesus to have called God ABBA - Daddy -
was the only option available if he were making reference to a
PERSONAL God.
As I say, we who grew up using male terminology for God came
by it honestly. But there is always a danger when we import
something from one language into another. The Italians have a
two-word proverb: "Translator; traitor." There is always the
possibility of misunderstanding.
Examples. According to one story, someone translated the
English figure of speech "out of sight, out of mind" into
Russian, and then had the translated version reconverted by
computer into English. The machine came up with "invisible
idiot." When Coca-Cola first entered the Chinese market, their
bottles were embossed with the Chinese characters which
represented the sounds of "Coca-Cola," but which in fact meant
"Bite the wax tadpole." When Pepsi translated their slogan,
"Come Alive, You're in the Pepsi Generation," into Chinese, it
came out, "Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead."
Sometime back I read a note on PresbyNet from a Japanese-Canadian pastor named Tad Mitsui who lives in Montreal. He was
writing about this issue of language in communicating the faith.
He noted, "[L]anguages represent cultures. But the Gospel
transcends cultures. We have to be careful when we discuss
matters of faith..." Then he cited an example:
The United Church of Canada General Council sometime
ago spent over one hour arguing whether the Holy Bible
is "the" foundational authority or "a" foundational
authority. After some heated discussion the Council
agreed to adopt the text without any article. So the
authorized text says now, "the Bible is foundational
authority." Of languages I speak, 2 in which I can
preach do not have articles, Japanese and Sesotho (a
Southern African [dialect]). Those people who live in
those languages would not have understood what the fuss
was all about. I can also preach in a language that
has sex in the articles [French]. On the other hand,
in Chinese, Japanese, and Sesotho, the word for God is
neuter.
Do you see the problem? Be careful of being adamant about
linguistic choices when those choices may simply reflect an issue
in translation.
Another point needs to be made here. Language changes.
Jesus Christ may be the same yesterday, today, and forever, but
our language about him (and everything else) is not. As the TNIV
website notes, "In 2003 when Merriam-Webster updated its
collegiate dictionary, lexicographers made more than 100,000
changes and added more than 10,000 new words and phrases that did
not appear in 1993."(3) LOTS of changes, and just in ten years.
How long has it been since you heard the word "gay" and
presumed it meant "happy?" When is the last time you called
someone a "colored person" or a "Negro?" Language changes, and
what was appropriate in one context or generation can suddenly
become INappropriate when one group or another is hurt by it.
Just words? Hardly.
Just two weeks ago, the President of the New Jersey State
Senate announced that he would be introducing an amendment to the
state constitution to change some archaic language. In Article
II, Section I, dealing with elections and who is eligible to
vote, paragraph 6 states, "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy
the right of suffrage." As you can imagine, advocates for the
mentally ill say it is time to dispense with the phrasing. If
approved by the Legislature, and then by voters in November, the
amendment would not give new rights to people with mental illness
or developmental disability. The US Constitution, the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the US Voting Rights Act already
protect disabled people's right to participate in elections. The
amendment would deny the vote only to individuals who were
determined by a judge to "lack the capacity to understand the act
of voting."(4) Language changes. Whether your voting CHOICE is
idiotic or not, like beauty, is probably in the eye of the
beholder.
One more example, a grand old Isaac Watts hymn that, for
some reason or other is rarely sung today. It is called "Blest
Is the Man Whose Bowels Move" (and can be sung to the tune of
"Jesus Shall Reign Where'er the Sun"). The lyrics are:
Blest is the man whose bowels move,
And melt with pity to the poor;
Whose soul by sympathizing love,
Feels what his fellow-saints endure.
His heart contrives for their relief
More good than his own hands can do.
He in the time of gen'ral grief
Shall find the Lord has bowels too.(5)
This is NOT in any of our hymnals. One wag has suggested
that it might be included in a new collection entitled "Hymns for
Irregular Christians."
D. T. Niles, the noted Asian preacher, began a sermon once
in a surprising way. He asked his listeners to stand to their
feet, turn and face the back of the sanctuary. The congregation
did that in a rather puzzled fashion. Then he told them to turn
back around and face the front, which they did, and then to sit
down again. By then a murmur of confusion spread over the
people. Had this world-renowned preacher "lost it?"
Then Niles said, "I have begun in this manner to demonstrate
to you the power of [words]. As you have just witnessed, words
make things happen. One person speaking to another involves far
more than certain sounds being created and transmitted and heard.
Words go out to do things and make a difference in the realities
they touch. Words are the tools with which we build the faith.
The church rises or falls on the strength of its words..."(6)
The words we use are important. They were important in the
Garden of Eden because, of all God's creatures, it was Adam who
was chosen to pass out the names - the honor was symbolic of
superior position and authority.
Words have always been Christianity's most important tool.
As much as we might want to believe that our witness is our walk,
we need the words to let the world know WHY we walk the way we
do. Philip encountered a seeker on the road to Gaza. The man
was reading scripture but he did not understand. He needed
Philip's WORDS about the WORD before he could come to faith. The
words we use today can either open the doors or close the doors
to those on the outside hoping for a chance to understand.
And if you think that folks will understand the way we have
always talked, think again. The evidence says no. When I was
still in North Carolina, I was part of a Lutheran-Presbyterian
dialogue in Winston-Salem. Mark Manees, the Bishop of the North
Carolina Lutheran Synod, told of an incident during a visit to a
hospital in Charlotte. One of his ministers was ill, so the
bishop was taking communion to him. As he rode in the elevator,
a hospital staffer got in, nodded to him, and then said, "I know
you. Wait a minute. Don't tell me. I'll get it." The bishop
was dressed in his normal clerical collar, communion kit in hand,
and wondered whether or not this companion might have seen him at
worship some time or another. Suddenly, the man blurted out,
"Now I know...you're the new neurosurgeon." Hmmm. If folks do
not even recognize a clerical collar, we have quite a row to hoe.
And a good place to start is in making certain we use words that
do not lead to misunderstanding.
I have no idea whether what I say this morning will change
anyone's way of thinking. I am only reminded of the interview
conducted by a newspaper with a wonderful pastor who had reached
the time of retirement. The young reporter asked the minister if
he thought it was his job to keep people from going to Hell? "Oh
no," he replied, "It's my job to keep people from going to Hell
IGNORANT." My job is not to insist that you adjust your thinking
and speaking about God, but rather to let you know why the 21st
century church thinks the way it does and is concerned about the
words we use.
Words. They are important. Another old PresbyNet note from
my files. Hans Arneson, a pastor in Amherst, New Hampshire
reported that Raymond, one of the youngsters in his parish, met
another child of the same age but who had only three fingers on
one hand. Hans says that the mother, who had seen countless
taunts to her son by other children, witnessed the meeting and
watched with some trepidation. The boys began to play when
suddenly Raymond noticed the three fingers and said, "Look, God
made you special!" The mother heard and broke down in tears of
joy. Words. Wow!
Amen!
1. Joe Claro, The Random House Book of Jokes and Anecdotes, (New York: Random
House, Inc., 1990)
2. http://www.tniv.info/; The TNIV is published by the International Bible Society and
Zondervan Publishing
3. http://www.tniv.info/qanda.php
4. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1168234756255060.xml&coll=1
5. http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/blestman.htm
6. Given at an ecumenical conference in New York City in 1960, at which D. T. Niles
brought the principal address.
click and send us mail