A Reaction to Inclusive Language: A Linguistic Perspective
Inclusion is a dangerous game. It is easy to seek to include some group at the expense of another. I think this is particularly dangerous as to how we understand God.
While female terms are sometimes used to describe parts of God’s nature, male language is used more frequently. Jesus tells us to call God our Father (as opposed to Mother, or Parent, or maybe Pleterion) because the characteristics of a father are apparently are well suited for describing something about God’s nature.
The human mind organizes information through linguistic categories. English has two categories for gender: male and female; him and her. No widespread neutered terms exist. Everyone is fitted into a category. We need some way to speak about God, so we are reduced to fitting Him into a gender category. If we cannot use a gender then we are forced to call Him an “it”, which in English, reduces God to the status of an animal or inanimate object. English lacks the ability to talk about a personal entity without putting that entity into some gendered category.
So instead of being mad that male language is used to talk about God, it seems much more useful to think about what it means to attribute gendered attributes to God. How do male terms enhance our understanding of who God is? How do the female terms do the same? Who are we to try to neuter God?
Alison Emry, Class of ’15
