‘Becoming All Things to All Persons’: Gender,Human Identity,and Language;Towards Healing and Reconciliation as Mission

Introduction

For centuries masculine words have been used to refer only to men sometimes and at other times to refer to both men and women. Such language that excludes women making them invisible is referred to as sexist or exclusive language. It is a language pattern that claims to recognize women but allows only male pronouns, terms, and titles derived from the male (brethren, brotherhood, chairman, mankind, fellow, fraternity, and so on). Despite the 1971 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary declaring the generic term ‘man’ obsolete and no longer acceptable, it is still used by many people around the world (Gerry McCant, 1999). Moreover, a female Justice of the high court is still addressed in male terms reminiscent of the male only that formerly occupied such a seat centuries ago: ‘His lordship, Mrs Priscilla Anini.’ The incongruence between the language and the reality might not strike many people. A sense of tradition and convention seem to take the upper hand. Paul Mbangwana, a Cameroonian linguist, put it this way:

Language use and usage have tended to be rather pro-male as the female is consistently tagged on in relation to the male. Man and its related forms are used as the common and natural gender; and appear as the generic, the norm, in fact as the human race per se. Intentionally, or otherwise, men have formulated a semantic rule which posits them as central and positive as the norm, and they have classified the world from that standpoint, constructing a symbolic system which represents patriarchal order. (2001: 118)

Furthermore, Miriam Therese Winter rightly observes that when referring to God, Christianity uses exclusively male pronouns, thereby assuming and imaging a masculine God. Then she makes this point: ‘If you want to test the validity of anyone’s claim to inclusivity, try referring to God as She. . . . A male colleage unwilling to call God Mother because it would be exclusive said “let’s just call him it”’ (Winter, 1987: 7, as cited in Dierks, 1997: 182). This shows how deeply ingrained gender-bias is in the mind of an average person.

Incidentally, most African languages do not have the problem of exclusively masculine pronouns; and there is no generic term for ‘man’ either. The celebrated Nigerian gender scholar, Ifi Amadiume, illustrates this point:

There is a biological gender distinction of male and female of any species in Igbo terminology. Oke means male, and nyi means female. The terms for man and woman are nwoke and nwanyi. These are contracted forms of two words, nwa, child, and the respective gender words, oke, male, and nyi, female, hence the distinction, male child and female child. But in subject pronouns, no distinction is made between male and female. The third person singular, 0, stands for both male and female, unlike the English gender construction, which distinguishes male and female as ‘he’ and ‘she’. As a result, many Igbo people, when speaking English, interchange ‘he’ and ‘she’, ‘his’ and ‘her’. In Igbo, the third person singular of the possessive pronoun ya stands for both his and hers; thus there is no reminder in speech to distinguish between the sexes. (1987: 89)

The Yoruba language has a similar pattern. ‘Obirin’ is a woman and ‘Ókurin’ is a man. This notwithstanding, African cultures share with other world cultures a subtle disdain for the female as found in several misogynist proverbs, creation myths, sermons, songs, laws, customs, and everyday comments. In Nigeria, for example, one can sometimes pick up spite for women particularly in conflict situations (Uchem, 2002: 38):

‘You are just talking like a woman!’

‘After all you are a woman!’

‘Imagine. A woman for that matter!’

‘Don’t talk to me like that. Am I a woman?’

‘Don’t you know I am a man?’

A similar disparagement of women by some Western thinkers within and outside the Church has been artfully highlighted by Amuluche Greg Nnamani.

One of the most influential defenses of male supremacy is to be found in the writings of Aristotle, ¹ an ancient Greek philosopher. For him, ‘the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity extends to all mankind.’ He went as far as saying that the woman is a defaced human nature and that the female is a ‘mutilated male.’ For over two thousand years, Aristotle’s misogynist description of women influenced the conception of women in the western world. It had its most negative effect in the Church: Tertullian called women ‘the gateway of the devil’ and John Chrysostom saw them as ‘a necessary evil’. (Homilies, XV, c. 388; as cited in Nnamani, 2005: 25).

Similarly, he spotlights the sayings of some secular opinion leaders about women. Nietzsche, a German philosopher, in a bid to discourage women from learning, is credited with saying: ‘When a woman inclines to learning there is usually something wrong with her sex apparatus’ (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886). Shakespeare, the great English writer, recognized only one virtue in women: ‘To be slow in words is a woman’s only virtue’ (Aristotle). In the same vein, G. K. Chesterton, who was ready to identify more virtues characteristic of women, ended up denying them the most important ones. In his words: ‘There are only three things in the world that women do not understand. They are liberty, equality, and fraternity’ (Chesterton). Arthur Schopenhauer, another German, contended: among other things that women had defective powers of reasoning and deliberation. ‘What women lack in physical strength they make up for in craft and instinctive capacity for cunning.’ ² These anti-women sentiments uttered in words were accompanied by actual mistreatment in the Church and in the Western society.

Being seen as the gateway, to hell, and not being recognized as bearing the image of God, women were often scorned and ridiculed, used and objectified as the target of sexual aggressions in the Church . . . and climaxed in the horror-striking witch-hunt of the Middle-Ages. (Nnamani, 2005: 25)

It would be correct then to say that sexist or exclusive language rests on the devaluation of the female sex and belief in the superiority of the male sex. This situation constitutes a wound, a rift, in the human family which calls for healing.

It is a task for the Christian mission of reconciliation. The mission of Christ is to reconcile humanity to God their Creator and to one another and thus; in the words of St Paul, ‘to become all things to all persons’ (I Corinthians 9: 22). By his life, death and resurrection Christ is meant to have ‘become all things to all persons,’ whether male or female; but in reality this is not yet so for women. In light of the continued use of exclusive imaging and speaking about the human and divine, the question remains: to what extent has the experience of reconciliation been a reality for women? How can believers be motivated enough to become more committed to the Gospel call to the mission of reconciliation in the area of gender and language so as to increase everyone’s access (especially women’s access) to the unique healing power of Christ’s resurrection?

The reasons underlying sexist language, the rationale and guide for change are the burdens of this article. Its assumptions are that unconscious beliefs and symbols rule the human imagination far more than do words and conscious declarations. The article consists of an introduction; clarification of key words; statement of the problem; causes and gender issues underlying sexist language; the psychological effects on women; theological implications; the rationale and guide for change; and a conclusion.

Clarification of Key Words

The key words in this article are: human identity, language, gender, healing, reconciliation and mission. ‘Human’ refers to a being consisting of not only body and soul but also various aspects such as the social, physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual components, as insights from psychology and other human sciences have suggested. Humans come in two forms, namely, male and female. Furthermore, being human presupposes a web of relationships with other human beings as well as other inhabitants of the universe. It also involves a historical perspective, one that unfolds, evolves, develops and grows; and has the benefit of the cumulative experience and wisdom of one’s community both on a global and a local scale. In addition, there is a conscious and an unconscious side to her/his personality. As the analytic psychologist Carl G. Jung amply indicated, ³ the conscious aspect represents only but a small fraction of the total personality, like the tip of an iceberg. That is to say, most of human existence and conduct lie largely in the unconscious domain. Jung believed that there were certain elements in the collective human unconscious known as archetypes which only appear as symbols in dreams. There is yet a contra-sexual component in each person resulting ideally in a balance of feminine and masculine characteristics in each man or woman. These unconscious realities, according to Jung, find expression in dreams, myths and rituals in all human societies across the world. Jung postulated that symbols are the vehicles and language of the human unconscious. ⁴ Therefore, as a symbol, language plays a key role in evoking change and effecting transformation; in confirming human identity. For this reason, I think that ‘gendered-language’ is a very powerful tool in affirming or destroying a person’s sense of human identity, whether consciously or unconsciously. This very fact underscores the importance of the topic at hand and the need for a critical re-examination of language as a potent tool of domination.

Paul Mbangwana (2001: 125) refers to language as ‘a system of sounds, signs and symbols through which human beings think and communicate information and ideas.’ He makes the point that:

As a mental phenomenon language influences our thoughts and actions in the society. The structures, systems and lexical usage of a language like English reflect . . . The male-centred patterns of culture such as he or son, man and other male-related forms are prevalent. Linguistic behaviour reflects the inter-relationship between language and social roles. In this way the type of social conditioning that is reflected linguistically is a potent force for male-dominant language structure and a pervasive paradigm for female submissiveness and powerlessness. (Mbangwana, 2001)

Another word which calls for clarification is gender. Gender refers to the power relations between men and women. It is

society’s expectation of how boys or girls, men or women, in a given culture ought to feel, look or behave and often finds expression in roles, which are socially and culturally determined. It is distinguished from sex which refers to the biological and natural condition of being male or female; along with their associated reproductive organs, biological functions, physiological and psychological characteristics. Whereas sex is more or less permanent, natural and universal, gender roles are learned and vary from one society to another and from one era to another. (Joint Christian Association of Nigeria, 2005: 27)

Since they are human-made, they are changeable. They are transmitted from one generation to another through the process of socialization of little boys and girls with its attendant system of reinforcements and sense of taboo.

Problem and Meaning of Sexist Language

Sexist or exclusive language is one that insists on the use of ‘man,’ ‘he,’ and ‘his’ as the correct way to speak about human beings. It thereby by-passes women and treats them as if they do not exist. In this way, it implies that males are more important and more representative of the human race than females. It goes with the social expectation that when the term ‘man’ is used, women should understand that they are included; yet in reality this is a lack of recognition of women. In contrast, inclusive language means language that is: non-sexist, non-judging, and non-demeaning, but is rather scripturally expansive; inclusive, diverse, and sensitive. As Sheila Durkin Dierks says, frequently ‘non-sexist and inclusive’ mean that women are not demeaned or excluded (Dierks, 1997: 186). The problem lies not in the fact that male metaphors are used, since men are also made in the image of God, but rather in the fact that the terms are used exclusively, literally, and patriarchally (Dierks, 1997: 186).

Exclusive language reflects the stratified mindset of the society which makes women not just inferior to men but essentially non-persons. As Joan Chittister argues, ‘it is one thing to be an inferior or less important person; it is quite another thing to be no person at all’ (Chittister, 1983: 23). The following illustrates the issue very well. To a mixed congregation of men and women a homilist declares: ‘Brothers! God created man in His own image and put man in charge of the earth.’ A similarly mixed congregation at worship sings: ‘Sons of God hear His holy Word. Gather round the table of His Word.’ This remains intact even when the worshipping community is an all-female congregation. Furthermore, convention programs and requires an all-women’s gathering to take as perfectly normal: ‘My dear fellow members, I now turn over the meeting to our new chairman.’ Again, in a classroom situation in an all-girls school one might hear: ‘Everyone must do his homework tonight or he will be punished’ (Dorr, 1991: 90–91).

Furthermore, Exodus 20:17 states: ‘you shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife or his servant, man or woman, or his house.’ Consequently, it has been observed that the law was actually written for men, as was the bible itself.

Women were not permitted formal education, as men were, and so could not read the Sacred Scriptures anyway. Furthermore, women were considered minors, like children and slaves, and so the Law was never addressed to them. Fathers and husbands were held responsible for the behaviours of all females in their families. Women, with very rare exception, were never heads of households, and so did not own houses or property. Through the wording of this commandment we see once again that women are excluded; women are invisible. (Dorr, 1991: 91)

The psalms are full of references to men only. For instance Psalm 8 states: ‘What is mere man that you think of him? Mortal man that you care for him? Yet you made him inferior only to yourself’ (Psalm 8: 4–6). Jacqueline Dorr therefore wonders: ‘Where is woman in this picture of creation?’ (Dorr, 1991: 91).

The experience of being treated as non-persons takes a graphic turn in the account of the multiplication of the loaves recorded by all the four gospels. ‘Those who ate numbered about five thousand men, to say nothing of women and children’ (Matthew 14: 21). Matthew negatively recognizes that women were present when Jesus fed the great masses of people. Women were present, but along with the children, were not deemed important enough to be counted. In the other three gospels, the presence of women was not even mentioned. This, again, has greatly rendered women invisible; and worse still, many Christian leaders and members have mistakenly taken it as a prescription to treat women as if they were non-persons. As Jacqueline Dorr rightly points out, ‘Because culture has excluded her, language ignores her; because language renders her invisible, culture tends to forget her or treat her as unimportant’ (Dorr, 1991: 91). Such is the power of language.

Dorr goes further to draw attention to the equivocations in Christian belief and praxis regarding gender, human identity and language about God and people. In Galatians 3: 28, we read that God intends equality for all; that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, between slave and free, between man and woman.

If therefore everyone is equal, why do we speak of God in male terms only? This is a very one-sided and incomplete God! Instead of human beings ‘made in the image and likeness of God,’ we have created a god made in the image and likeness of man, the masculine gender alone. The lack of recognition of women makes them essentially non-persons. It is no wonder that women are treated as the unnamed property of someone else. (Dorr, 1991: 91)

Rose Uchem highlights the dynamics of name in relation to this being ‘owned’ while not being allowed to own property. Initially women are owned by their own father whose name they bear; and later by their husband whose name they also bear unless new awareness impels them to choose otherwise. It is a powerful expression of subjugation.

The principle of subjugation is at play when a woman’s first name is omitted and she is simply tagged along onto a man’s name as ‘Mrs Ukamba’ instead of Mr Kenneth and Mrs Margaret Ukamba. Worse still, women are subjugated each time the generic term ‘man’ is used to represent men and women whereas the term ‘woman,’ which is even more inclusive, is not understood as including men generically. (Uchem, 2002: 16)

In church contexts, therefore, where no efforts are being made at all to use inclusive language that explicitly recognizes the presence of women and men, then those in power should realize that they are talking only to men. A story was told of a parish where a representative of a community informed the new priest that the community preferred the use of universal language in the Mass (‘humankind’ or ‘all people’ for ‘men,’ ‘community’ for ‘brotherhood’) and the priest gave a benign, patronizing answer: ‘When I say “men” [broad smile] I mean everyone.’ No more obvious a lack of concern for the dialogue of Eucharist or the existence of person can possibly be manifested. What the words meant to the female congregation were simply not important to him despite the known fact that addressing someone directly or naming a thing gives them identification and therefore value (Chittister, 1983: 23–24). In another instance, a music publisher refused to edit sexist language out of hymn material, arguing that ‘the ERA is important but pronouns are not,’ is a person in the language business who doesn’t understand language. What is not in the language will never be in the culture or in the mind. To this effect, Joan Chittister asserts: ‘That women are not important enough to be recognized in the language is one reason why women do not have equal rights in civil law’ (Chittister, 1983: 24). She goes further to draw attention to how sexist language also affects the position of men in the society. For instance, ‘no word exists in the culture to describe a man who has fathered a child, parallel to “she has conceived, or she is pregnant;” yet he is a part of it.’ She notes that the (English) language does not tell us ‘what the man is’ or ‘what he has done.’ Hence, she states that

out of this linguistic attention to the biological processes of bearing a child, the man’s right to child custody or the birth process have almost been obliterated. Only now are the courts grappling with the rights of the unwed father, the divorced man. (Chittister, 1983: 24)

Causes and Gender Issues Underlying Sexist Language

From many indications it would appear that sexist language stems from the universal social construction of gender which reflects male supremacy and female subordination as found in most parts of the world. The social construction of the feminine in many world contexts could therefore be said to be that which is ‘less’ than, and ‘worse’ than the masculine. It carries pejorative, negative, depreciatory, uncomplimentary, and derogatory connotations. What is at is the humanity of women; the human identity of women. That is, whether women are human or not. This is not a new question. It is as old as the stone-age when the feminine dimension of the human began to be despised, downgraded, denigrated and demonized by men as weak, secondary, and as the epitome and embodiment of evil. It is the same age-old question posed by medieval scholastics such as St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas, and others as to whether women are human or not. It is also reminiscent of the debates of some Western opinion-leaders who queried the relevance of missionary efforts that sought to bring salvation to Africans and wondered if Africans had any soul to begin with.

The inferiorization of women is a historical development. It is believed that long before the Old Testament was written, the earliest images of the Divine were actually female images. This was because people saw God primarily as ‘Life-Giver,’ and women were seen to possess this characteristic more than men. Women were the life-givers, bringing forth new life, healing and nourishing it. It would seem that when groups accept certain images that represent God-like qualities for them, they begin to develop religious, social, legal, and educational structures that correspond to these images. Thus, ancient societies created female-centered societies where the woman was highly respected and honored. The female God-images and life systems gradually disappeared between 5,000 and 1,000 B.C. as they were violently overthrown by more war-like groups that invaded their land. Eventually, these rather peaceful ‘feminine societies’ with their female God-images and structures were replaced by forceful masculine images and systems of power, domination and authority. In this way, patriarchy was born (Dorr, 1991: 16).

Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendel postulates that,

in the ancient world in the northern hemisphere, there were societies marked by much egalitarianism warn sharing and peace. . . . there was a correspondence between the idea of the goddesses of fertility and social values which gave women a greater say in society than it is today in European societies. (as cited in Mukonyora, 2005: 7)

This is very much like what happened in many African communities when the combined forces of colonialism and Western cultural Christianity dethroned women. Similarly, Anne Baring, writing about the period in which Christianity emerged, argues that male imagery became dominant and led to the suppression and seeming disappearance of female imagery in religious language (as cited in Mukonyora, 2005: 7). ‘The emergence of Christianity took place in a world in which God had not only become a Father figure but society had become hierarchicalized in favour of the man’ (Mukonyora, 2005: 8).

The gender analysis of Nkechi Nwankwo (2002), a media consultant in Nigeria, is very informative. She invoked Edwin Ardener’s theory of muted groups to explain the dynamics of women’s relative invisibility in the media. The theory states that:

In most groups or societies, one sub-group usually dominates the others and assumes the position of spokespersons for the rest of the group. By contrast, speech by members of the sub-dominant group becomes relatively devalued. Many within the subdominant group react to this devaluation by talking even less, thus, becoming muted. (Ardener, as cited in Nwankwo, 2002: 50)

Ardener further argues that most anthropological research and writing are done on men because they form the dominant models in most societies. He states quite rightly that:

No one could come back from an ethnographic study of [a particular ethnic group] having talked only to women about men, without professional comment and some self-doubt. [Yet] the reverse can and does happen constantly. (Ardener, as cited in Nwankwo, 2002: 50)

The languages used in most societies have been ‘encoded’ by males. Males, as the dominant group, have produced language, thought, and reality and as the dominant group, males were in a position to encode forms which enhanced their status, to provide justification for those forms, and to legitimize those forms. Consequently, language itself became sexist. Spender argues that males have encoded sexism into language to consolidate their claims of male supremacy. When using the ‘man-he’ language, it is difficult, if not impossible to discuss anything of consequence without picturing men in one’s mental image. Spender expresses it thus:

Man (and he) is in constant use as a term which supposedly includes females, and one of the outcomes of this practice has been to plant man uppermost in our minds. There is quite a lot of evidence which suggests that people think male when they use the term man. . . . the creation of the ‘man-he’ was very purposeful. It was neither insignificant nor accidental and once encoded in the language it had many repercussions for thought and reality. For one thing it put men in a position of strength and control. And if males are in control, then women develop the tendency to wait for men’s approval to talk. (Nwankwo, 2002: 50–52)

A major cause of exclusively masculine language is the tendency to take men as the norm for humanity while regarding women as abnormal, or even non-human. This is androcentrism [man-centeredness] at its highest, and is comparable to ego-centrism and ethno-centricism. The male experience of life, including experience of God, has wrongly been assumed as normative for all human beings. Consequently, the language of the men, the male and the masculine are regarded as the normal way to speak about humanity.

The result is that language about God and about humans in our society is gender-insensitive language. Worship and everyday language are full of exclusively masculine pronouns (his, him, and he). Hence, one can see the relationship between language and domination. The symbols ⁵ conveyed in a language are very important tools for dominating the minds of the oppressed group and making them inferior. One would wonder: If exclusively masculine language and symbols do not matter for women, why do some people try to avoid buying or using items such as cutlery and textile for, example, which bear the sacred symbols of a religion other than their own; knowing that they would otherwise be unconsciously dominated.

Masculine and male-dominant language for God is prevalent in daily usage and in community worship. The feminine and the female are nearly invisible or perceived as abnormal by convention. The most fundamentally significant expression of women’s oppression is the persistent use of exclusively masculine words and male images to speak to and about God. Everyone knows that God is neither male nor female, but is spirit. Yet, in practice, God is imaged and presented only as male and addressed in public worship only in masculine language. Many people feel it is normal to speak of God in terms of ‘He,’ ‘Him’ and ‘His’ but abnormal to apply ‘She,’ ‘Her’ or ‘Hers’ to God. Yet there are many instances of feminine personification of God in the Bible, especially in the Wisdom tradition of the Hebrew Bible. The point at issue is that if we cannot apply feminine language to God, then we are making a theological statement about women. It is an assertion God is not the origin and source of the existence of the female and the feminine component of humanity. We are denying that women are equally human and doubting that women come from God as much as men do. We are echoing St Augustine who once declared that only in union with a man does a woman reflect God’s image; whereas a man, alone, reflects God’s image. I think this is the highest symbolical form of women’s oppression (Uchem, 2002: 41–42).

Many claim that these language issues are really unimportant and not worth all this fuss and bother. ‘Words are such minor issues!’ To actually test this out, just try substituting feminine words for masculine ones; try speaking of God with only feminine images and pronouns. You will soon discover just how important ‘these language issues’ really are. Some people will fight to the death to retain that male image of domination over women even in language (Dorr, 1991: 93). Moreover as Sheila Durkin Dierks points out:

[Words] have a symbol sack; besides its literal meaning it also contains possibilities for simile and metaphor. Its usage over . . . time loads it with shades of meaning which have suggestive power. It is almost impossible to underestimate the might which naming has in our unconscious as well as our conscious lives. (Dierks, 1997: 172)

Most people take it for granted that men are pre-eminent human beings and women are secondary. The patriarchal system is sustained by economic, political, cultural, and religious institutions (including certain understandings of marriage and the vowed religious life), the educational system and the mass media. Sometimes, biblical passages are selectively quoted to support belief and practice of male superiority and female inferiority. Ephesians 5: 21–33 ⁶ and Colossians 3: 18 continue to be used for wedding ceremonies without reflecting the re-interpretation offered by Pope John Paul II’s ⁷ encyclical, Mulieris Dignitatem:

The challenge presented by the ‘ethos’ of the redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the ‘subjection’ of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a ‘mutual subjection’ of both ‘out of reverence for Christ’. (1988: no 24)

Many people actually believe, literally, on the basis of the biblical stories of Adam and Eve ⁸ in the book of Genesis, or rather their male-centered interpretations over the years that: ‘Women were created second, as an afterthought by God and, therefore, occupy a secondary place in the order of creation; that men are the normative human beings while women are derivatives, men’s “helpers.”’ ⁹

The suggestion that men are superior to women in matters of faith highlights a misunderstanding of the didactic intentions of the Judeo-Christian religious heritage. In agreement with Schussler Fiorenza, antagonistic relations between men and women is sin, if the gospel is understood properly. (Mukonyora, 2005: 9)

Unfortunately, the myths of female inferiority and functionality have become deeply entrenched in the human psyche, including those that do not hold allegiance to Christianity. As already noted many fathers of the church ¹⁰ such as Augustine, Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and others believed and spread many anti-women sentiments. They relied much on Aristotelian socio-biology believed and taught that women were biologically defective, lacking the fullness of human nature mentally, morally, and physically, hence needing to be governed by men and incapable of exercising public leadership in either church or political life. Regardless that empirical studies in biology have discredited this Thomistic and Aristotelian false biology; and psychology, sociology, anthropology, and interpersonal experiences have destroyed the assumption about female inferiority, inferences drawn from this ancient Greek philosophical framework have remained in official and public use. Amazingly, long after science has shown the proper manner of conception, Churchmen are obviously still very influenced by the belief of Thomas Aquinas in male headship and female inferiority and subservience. Anne Carr analyses this belief by saying:

The notion that the incarnation of the word of God in the male sex is ontologically necessary, suggested in Aquinas rests on the prior assumption of the defective nature of woman . . . and his assumptions about the male as the normative sex of the human species. (Carr, 1988: 165)

Considering the importance accorded the works of the fathers of the church in the formation of priests, seminarians, and laity in the light of numerous incidents of discriminations against women and anti-women attitudes, behaviors and sermons of many priests, it becomes obvious that Churchmen are still being influenced by the anti-women teachings of the church fathers. Given Christianity’s appropriation of Greek concepts of male superiority and female inferiority, the origins of clerical prejudice against women are not difficult to imagine. Considering the subsequent demonization of Eve and women, it is surely hard to see how present generation of Church men can distance themselves from the negative views and comments of patristic authors; since they still use their final conclusions that women are incapable of symbolizing Christ. ¹¹ I think this persistent belief in the male sex as the norm for humanity explains the persistent use of masculine language for God and all God’s people in worship and daily usage. Perhaps, this also explains the unwillingness of contemporary Churchmen to back their fine pronouncements with concrete action for change in the assigned secondary status of women. Thirteen years after Ecclesia in Africa mandated that a commission be set up to look into matters that affect women negatively in Africa, such a commission is yet to be instituted.

In practice, the inherited negative tendencies from different cultural backgrounds, reinforced by the biblical myths, the church fathers’ teachings and their attendant functional views about women, result in all kinds of exploitation of women. ¹² Literal proof-text approaches to the scriptures have been and are still being invoked to support women’s subjugation much the same way that some Fathers of the Church used the Bible to justify slavery ¹³ for many centuries before it became eventually outlawed. It goes without saying that the major problem is the devaluation of the female sex and this has wounded the human family and caused a rift in it.

Psychological Effects of Sexist Language on Women

The messages we get from other people tell us how valuable we are or not. Eventually, we learn to see and define ourselves in those terms. Sexist language is one example by which women are oppressed through a lack of recognition. If years of negative messages have told us only that we are inadequate, do not measure up, or do not even exist, then we develop low self-image. This dwarfs a person psychologically and causes a host of unconscious traits which resolve into a psycho-social condition called internalized oppression or the colonized mind; a characteristic of colonized groups. Hence the well-noted tendency among women that they are their own worst oppressors. In a men’s world that has devalued women before even they are born, many women develop an unconscious reaction to the situation in the form of: resentment, lack of self-confidence, dependency, a sense of worthlessness, pent up anger and frustration, hatred of self and others of one’s own kind; lack of independence and self-direction, accompanied by a crab mentality and a pull-her-down syndrome and feelings of animosity towards those like oneself who exhibit these very qualities and are breaking free from the status quo; at the same time being programmed to the expectations of men. Regarding a similar situation, the psychologist Gerald Egan has this to say: ‘Feeling is never suppressed; it is translated into a number of ungrowthful activities. Hostility, resistance, passive-aggression and displacement of emotions are all simply manifestations of a communication system that is poisoned by a sense of personal inadequacy’ (Chittister, 1983: 19–20).

Furthermore, Elizabeth Johnson asserts that imaging God only as male deprives women of the possibility of ever experiencing themselves as truly made in God’s likeness; since as females, they can never experience the ‘male God’ in themselves the same way that a boy or a man can physically identify with ‘the male God.’ The cumulative effect of such systematic devaluation is a psycho–spiritual condition called ‘children of a lesser God syndrome;’ an unconscious feeling of inferiority in many women, including very highly competent ones ¹⁴ (1992: 38–41, as cited in Uchem, 2002a: 42). She insists that any woman who images and prays to God as ‘male/masculine’ only is consenting to her own inferiorization; is participating in her own oppression, and ignoring the biblical myths of female evil. Similarly, Christians who insist on using only masculine language and imagery for God and God’s people are making God into an idol; are reinforcing women’s inferiorization and are thereby denying the reality of the divine image equally present in women as in men. They are saying ‘Amen’ to all the myths of female evil as found in the Bible and in those Fathers of the Church cited earlier.

Theological Implications

The fact that Jesus, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, was incarnated in the male sex ¹⁵ should not confuse us. We must remember that what matters is the humanity of Christ, which is inclusive of all; not his maleness, which is as exclusive of women as his Jewishness is exclusive of all the rest of us, non-Jewish men and women. Moreover, through his resurrection, Christ has overcome the physical limitations of the male sex, the Jewish ethnicity and other particularities of the earthly Jesus. Hence, the early Christians celebrated this good news in the baptismal hymn that Paul quoted in Galatians 3: 27–28. They understood that all of us who have been baptized into Christ have shared in this Christic transcendence of the divisions that rest on sex, race/ethnicity and social status. All of us are now one in Christ.

We must also remember that the first and the third persons of the Trinity have no ‘bodily form.’ Therefore, to impose bodily form on the Godhead, on the first and the third persons of the Trinity, is to create an idol, and it is not correct. We must also remember that all language about God is metaphorical, that is, it uses comparisons. For example, to say that God is Father or Mother is really a way of saying that God is like a father or like a mother. It is not meant to be taken literally and physically, as we do. Theology, that is the study and talk about God, calls this the analogical imagination or metaphorical imagination. It, therefore, reminds us that it is important to pray publicly to God as Mother as much as we do to God as Father, so that the two balance each other out. If we fail to do this, and use only Mother or only Father the whole time as most of us currently do, we soon begin to assume that God Most High is, literally and physically, father like our human father or mother like our human mother. It limits God and turns God into an idol and it is not correct. We must remember that God is More Than all naming and imagining. We should not limit God but rather feel free to use the variety of images and names of God that abound in the Scriptures and in our own mother-tongues.

Rationale for Change

Awareness is gradually growing that English is one of the most sexist languages in the world. Consequently, more and more English-speaking women and men are increasingly rejecting exclusive language and calling for inclusive language about God and God’s people in daily usage and worship.

Many women are offended by the use of exclusive language; feeling discriminated against or put down. Personally, as a man I increasingly find myself offended and even angry when I hear speech or read writings that avoid, and sometimes seem to go out of their way to avoid, inclusive language. (Henriot, 1994: 12)

The kinds of language that hurt are: labels and stereotypes; evaluations or judgments; sweeping statements; evasions and sexism; rejection, ridicule, reproof, put-downs, hostile humor, non-recognition, sermons that make swipes at people and the use of language to subsume or obliterate peoples. Language that minimizes others, excludes them, labels them, and ridicules them is destructive; builds up frustration and jeopardizes mental health. In contrast, language that communicates healing is descriptive rather than evaluative, specific rather than general, responsive rather than ignoring, and open rather than defensive. It attends to others as unique, trustworthy and worthy of respect, accepts others’ feelings and experiences as well as respects their equality and dignity. It recognizes, listens, and includes people, and is able to admit and deal with their emotions and identity is one that actually heals. It is what Joan Chittister calls ministering ‘reverently to the other with the sacrament of language’ (1983: 24–27).

The reason for this consciousness-raising about language is the recognition that words matter. ‘Words can heal as well as hurt.’ (Chittister, 1983: 18). ‘Almost all mental health work except in cases of organic brain damage from physical injury is based on talk therapy’ (Chittister, 1983: 18). In the case of women, devaluation through language has taken the form of labels, stereotypes, judgmental and sweeping statements, evasions, omissions and outright sexist language. Studies have shown the devastating effects of non-recognition on women’s self-esteem.

Church people have made very fine pronouncements about women’s dignity and the equality of men and women. Yet negative attitudes towards women persist in our societies and Churches till today in spite of small improvements recorded already. It remains to put into action the new teachings and to correct the injustices against women; for instance in the area of language. Women’s psyche needs to hear it in the language it understands; in symbols, the language of the unconscious; that women are truly human and equally made in God’s image.

Language is one of the most important ways a culture expresses its meaning and values.

From ancient times, civilizations have prized names so highly because prizing names is prizing the human achievement of consciously ordering one’s world and orienting one’s place in it. Not only does language form developing consciousness but it also structures the world about us. (Lonergan, 1972: 34–41)

Jacqueline Dorr has the following to say:

Language shapes our attitudes and values: If something is not important to a culture, then there are few if any words to describe it. On the other hand, if something is very important to a culture, then there are apt to be many different words to express this. For example, it is said that the Eskimos, who live in extremely cold climates where snow falls most of the year, have more than 20 different words to describe snow. The Americans have nearly as many words for ‘car.’ if we refuse to speak of ‘woman’ as distinct and separate from ‘man’ and include her presence under the term man, then what does that say of her importance in a culture? When we use masculine words to speak of females, we are expressing in very subtle (hidden) ways, attitudes that say women are of less importance and value than men. Do we believe and accept this? (Dorr, 1991: 92)

Dorr goes further to say:

If I have a basket of mangoes and oranges, and call them all mangoes, then the oranges might feel hurt and insulted. If I call all of them ‘fruit,’ then both will be satisfied and no one hurt. Why can’t we be as sensitive to women as we are to a basket of fruits? Instead of using terms like man to refer to both genders, we could instead use such words as people, persons, the human race, human beings, humanity, women and men. We have lots of choices here! We need not always refer to the masculine gender first! Let us vary this from time to time by saying girls and boys, women and men. There is no language rule telling us to mention males before mentioning females. (Dorr, 1991: 92)

Once we understand why language is so important it is possible to identify the kinds of language or communication patterns that have a negative effect on self-development, social interaction and mental health as well as to indicate which kinds of messages affirm and energize people (Chittister, 1983: 18).

It is one thing to be an inferior or less important person. It is another thing to be no person at all. And that is the effect of sexist language: to subsume one entire body of people under the identity of the other, to absorb and deny their individuality, to snuff out their independent existence. The argument against universalizing language (saying ‘people’ for ‘men,’ for instance) is that male words include women too or that the issue is trivial. But words mean what people agree that they mean, and the existence of half the human race is not trivial, unless of course you really do not value it. There is no such thing as the objective meaning of a word. Words connote whatever people think when they say them (Chittister, 1983: 23).

Pete Henriot, director of the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, Lusaka, Zambia, in an impressive article on inclusive language, rightly states the teaching of the church today; that

sexism – lack of respect for the equal human dignity of women, expressed in word or action – is a sin. This teaching is based on the clear biblical revelation that all persons are created equally in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27). (1994: 11)

According to the Second Vatican Council, ‘With respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every discrimination social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language, or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent’ (Gaudium et Spes, no. 29). John Paul II’s 1988 letter Mulieris Dignitatem emphasizes the dignity of women and challenges any unjust discrimination. The effort to overcome this degrading of women has been identified by John XXIII as one of the ‘signs of the times’ of our contemporary era, a call from God to work for a more effective realization of the Kingdom. Pope John XXIII says in Pacem in Terris (1963):

Since women are becoming ever more conscious of their human dignity, they will not tolerate being treated as inanimate objects or mere instruments, but claim, both in domestic and in public life, the rights and duties that befit a human person (41).

It is worth noting that the 33rd General Congregation of the Society of Jesuits, identifies the overcoming of discrimination against women as one of the calls for justice; and their working documents for their 34th General Congregation ‘emphasised justice for women as one of the important areas for our ministerial concerns’ (Henriot, 1994: 11). Thus there is an urgent need for healing and reconciliation; for all Church people to take concrete steps to correct the negative attitudes towards women that have continued till today in our societies and Churches in spite of all the small improvements that have been recorded. It is important that we all affirm, in actions not just in fine words alone, that women are truly human, truly and equally made in God’s image, and therefore, can represent God. We must heal women’s psyche by concretizing our affirmation that women really and truly come from God, for God cannot give what God does not have within God’s self.

To reconcile is to bring together once more severed parts of a whole. To reconcile is an integral part of who we are and want to be as Christ-ians, other Christs. It has to do with our basic identity as disciples of Christ; the kernel of what it means to be Christians. This perception comes across in the teachings of Christ as remembered by the men and women who gathered in Christ’s name in the earliest communities of believers. Paul succinctly captured it in his second letter to the Corinthians:

We have been reconciled to God through Christ; and have been entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation. I mean God was in Christ reconciling the world to the God’s self, not holding humanity’s faults against them and has entrusted to us the news that they are reconciled. So we are ambassadors for Christ. It is as though God were appealing through us, and the appeal we make in God’s name is: Be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5: 18–19)

This appeal was echoed throughout the year of the great Jubilee 2000, when there was a continuous call for reconciliation. It was not only for the cancellation of debts, but also primarily, for an end to conflicts, for healing of wounds and for restoration of unity, respect and love among the people of all nationalities, races and religious convictions. The mission of reconciliation cannot happen in the abstract. There must be a substratum for peace and reconciliation and there can be no hope for peace when people’s basic human rights are not respected. Peace and reconciliation can only flourish in a situation where nobody is subordinated as a second class citizen on any pretext or context whatsoever, whether secular or sacred. So if we want peace, we must be fair and just in our dealings with people. We cannot justifiably expect reconciliation to take effect when the necessary conditions have not yet been met or set in place, namely, the demands of social justice to find out the truth about a conflict situation; to give voice to those denied it. In this way we are to become God’s image and likeness through living out our human and Christian call to reconciliation.

The God we are invited to image is the God presented in the parable of the prodigal son, which Wilfrid Harrington prefers to call the Prodigal Father (1982). This God is more like a Mother than a typical father. There are so many images of God in the scriptures – and they sometimes conflict – but this is clearly the inclusive God of Jesus Christ whom we are to imitate. Actually, no human is like the father in this story. In reality, in our lived experience, it is a mother who acts like this, unconditionally, towards an erring child and in fact would do it, hiding from the father, in case she is accused of spoiling the child. The point being made here is that this is how God is; like a fatherly-Mother and a motherly-Father. This is the God we are to imitate in inclusiveness and sensitivity.

Recommendations and Guide for Change

As a way forward, Marjorie Procter-Smith has helpfully distinguished between three kinds of women-friendly language as: non-sexist, inclusive, and emancipatory (Procter-Smith, In Her Own Rite, 63–71, as cited in Berger, 1999: 129). The first one avoids gender-specific terms. The second one seeks gender balance in references. The third, emancipatory language, ‘seeks to transform language use and to challenge stereotypical gender references.’ For Procter- Smith, only the third kind of language is truly liberative (Berger, 1999: 129).

It is not enough simply to reject masculine images. They need to be replaced. This is because ‘we consciously, unconsciously, or subconsciously follow, emulate, take example from the God we worship; the God of masculinity, the male’ (Dierks, 1997: 182). As Dierks rightly notes, ‘renaming God does not change God; it changes us’ (1997: 181). Since God possesses both feminine as well as masculine characteristics, it is necessary for parents, teachers, and ministers to take deliberate steps to compose and use prayers addressed to God, using [for a change] only feminine God-images and titles such as God, our loving Mother, and so on. Besides, they can use various methods mothers and teachers to make children aware that women/girls as well as men/boys reflect certain characteristics of God and that neither is superior to the other. Feminine and neuter images from the Scriptures are to be used to balance the masculine images. God-Models that have feminine characteristics and qualities include: Mother, Life-Giver, Nurturer, Mid-Wife, Provider Comforter, Merciful, Gentle, Forgiving, and so on. These feminine God-images, few though they are, can be found hidden away in the pages and texts of both the Old and New Testaments. God is like: a woman in labor, gasping and panting to bring forth new life (Isaiah 42: 14); a baker-woman who transforms dough and makes bread by a little sprinkling of yeast (Luke 13: 20–2; 1.); a mother who never forgets her baby at the breast (Isaiah 49: 15); a mother-bear who goes to any length to retrieve her cubs (Hosea 13: 8); a mother-hen that seeks to enfold her chicks under her wings (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13: 34); a mother-eagle that takes her tender ones to safety on her wings (Exodus 19: 4; Deuteronomy 32: 11); a woman who lost a coin and sweeps and scatters her house until she finds it and celebrates when she finds it (Luke 15: 8–10). It is also helpful to become acquainted with the biblical Wisdom/Sophia/Hokmah tradition in the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus’ transgression of the ‘holiness/purity system’ of Israel. Furthermore it is necessary to reconstruct and re-interpret Scripture passages in a way that fosters healing and empowerment for women. It is very enlightening to familiarize one’s self with stories of women’s active leadership in the early Church ¹⁶ and current trends of increasing active participation of contemporary women in government and Church leadership all over the world.

The Liturgical Psalter (ICEL, 1994) offers some useful guidelines referring to the Holy See’s 1969 Instruction on the Translation of Liturgical Texts (no. 20):

The prayer of the church is always the prayer of some actual community, assembled here and now. It is not sufficient that a formula handed down from some other time or region be translated verbatim, even if accurately, for liturgical use. The formula translated must become the genuine prayer of the congregation and in it each of its members should be able to find and express him or herself.

It also suggests that words which are no longer understood as inclusive terms, such as ‘man’ or ‘men,’ ‘sons,’ ‘brothers’ or ‘brethren,’ and ‘forefathers,’ should be avoided (CEILT, nos. 18–19), except where demanded by a particular context. The problem of naming God can be resolved by following the direction of the CEILT, no. 26:

Wherever possible, masculine pronouns are not to be used to refer to God. Instead: (a) the name itself might be repeated or a synonym provided (‘God’ or ‘the Lord’); (b) judging from internal shifts of grammatical person manifested in a particular text, the third person (‘he’) might be absorbed into a continuous second-person (‘you’) form throughout the entire psalm or canticle (CEILT, no. 23); (c) or, most commonly, the linguistic structure [can be] arranged in idiomatic English such that the need for a pronominal expression never arises.

Dorr (1991) suggests how to change sexist terms to gender-inclusive terms. For example: The average person or, ordinary people instead of the common man; God created humans instead of God created man; Chairperson or the Chair instead of Chairman; Everyone clapped their hands or All clapped their hands instead of Everyone clapped his hands; Sisters and Brothers in Christ or Brothers and Sisters in Christ or Friends in Christ instead of Brothers in Christ; Members or Dear Members or Friends, etc. instead of Fellow members; (The word ‘fellow’ is an informal word for man and should never be used to refer to women or girls); Dear people of God instead of Brethren; Husband and wife or man and woman instead of Man and wife; (Husband/wife: show relationship to one another man/woman indicate the gender of the person only); God our Father and Mother or God our Parent instead of God our Father; Those who believe and are baptized instead of He who believes and is baptized; Our foreparents settled in this land instead of Our forefathers settled in this land (‘Forefathers’ should be used only when referring to our male ancestors); What God has joined together let no one put asunder instead of What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Conclusion

This article has examined the meaning and problem of sexist language and exposed the gender issues underlying it. It has also highlighted its psychological effects on women and offered a rationale and suggestions for change. The root issue underlying sexist language is the negativity attached to the female in relation to the male in the society and the Church. What is at stake is the humanity of women; the human identity of women. A way forward is to acknowledge that all is not well between men and women and for all to take definite steps to correct the situation. The importance of the subject of language and gender lies on the assumption that unconscious beliefs and symbols are far more powerful in the human imagination than words and conscious declarations. Therefore, it is important to image and speak inclusively about humans and God consistently. In this way, women and men will be better honored. There will be better chances of Christ of ‘becoming all things to all persons.’