Is Language Really Changing So Rapidly? The Use of Words has Changed Over the Years, But the Generic Use of “He” is Still Alive and Well

Throughout the recent NIV controversy over inclusive language, a common reason given for supporting gender-neutral language has been the changes in usage in contemporary American English. Catherine Kroeger wrote that the decision to abandon gender-related changes in future editions of the NIV "would freeze the text of the NIV in the form of its 1984 revision, thus destroying its nature as a ‘living translation' that keeps pace with our changing language" ("Open Letter to the International Bible Society," June 11, 1997). John Kohlenberger, in a seminar address at the Christian Booksellers Association meetings on July 14, 1997, said, "We may not like changes in our language, but we have to recognize them and respond to them or we will miscommunicate....We must take care not to use potentially exclusive language when we intend our communication to be inclusive. If we are misunderstood, we have miscommunicated, and we have misrepresented the Word of God."

But is our language really changing at breakneck speed? Syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick, who writes a column on language usage for the Universal Press Syndicate, addressed the "Clumsy struggles to avoid using ‘he.'" He cites numerous "horrid examples,"including: From a headline in San Bernardino, Calif.: "Do your child a favor; teach them grammar." From a placard of patients' rights at Kenner Army Hospital in Virginia: "The patient is not a routine concern-he/she is an individual case...the patient is not in a normal condition-he/she is in a state requiring medical attention... The patient is deserving of the most courteous and attentive treatment we can give him/her..."

Kilpatrick asks his readers, "Did you wince? Shudder? Roll your eyes? The problem is as old as the English language itself: There is no genderneutral singular pronoun to link with a singular antecedent." He notes that for many centuries this lack caused no problem, and the custom developed of using a generic masculine referent. But this practice began to develop some guilt by association and tortured solutions began to appear, including the "plural solution" (instead of asking if each child had his book, asking if all the children had their books); the "Virgulean solution" (using the virgule, more commonly known as the slash to conjoin both pronouns as his/her or he/she); the "distaff solution" (using only feminine pronouns) and the "alternating solution" used by the editors of Parenting magazine, in which alternating paragraphs are cast for girl babies or for boy babies.

Unimpressed with these solutions and somewhat exasperated by all their grammatical and lexical end runs to avoid offense, Kilpatrick recommends, "When all else fails, and every recasting seems more awkward than the one before, I would throw prudence to the winds. Plunge into the vortex! Without apology, let us revert to the hoary tradition of, ‘Every child who fails to bring HIS homework will be kept in school until HE does it.'"

To solve a similar quandry over the usage of singular verbs and collective sports team names, William Safire offers his own personal dictum: "to reach a decision, let us turn to the great guiding principle of English grammar, revered by linguistic sages, eminent lexicographers and the most useful usagists: ‘No matter how "correct" it may be, if it sounds funny to the ear of the native speaker, it ain't right.'" The point in both columns seems to be that usage is more resistant to change than we might be told to think; clumsiness in writing and in hearing ought to be avoided.

With this in mind, we want to alert readers of CBMWNEWS to a new booklet, "What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?" scheduled for October release. In this booklet, CBMW President Wayne Grudem discusses the guidelines on Bible translation and evaluates several modern "inclusive" translations. Finally, he surveys the contemporary usage of generic masculine pronouns and offers many striking and very current examples, including the following:

A student who pays his own way gets the tax credit.

USA TODAY, July 30, 1997, p. 3B

"Or is it when someone with a heavy accent calls up (a news organization), he tends to be dismissed more readily than someone who speaks standard English?"

USA TODAY, Aug. 21, 1997, page 3D,
quoting Ted Koppel who was preparing a Nightline
broadcast on claims of police brutality in New York City

"Anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment."

Reader's Digest, Sept., 1997, page 61, quoting Robert Benchley

Wages are flat, hours are up, bosses are morons and everyone's stuffed into a cubicle - if he's lucky enough to have a job.

Newsweek, Aug. 12, 1996, p. 3

"If a timid person who wants to be more assertive at work takes Prozac without dealing with the issues that make him timid, the message becomes the opposite of what we try to do with therapy..."

Christianity Today, Aug. 14, 1995, p. 36,
quoting Wheaton psychologist Karen Maudlin

The Cardmember agrees to use the service only for his benefit and for the benefit of members of his immediate family.

"Your Personal Benefits Guide,"
a brochure from Discover Card, Aug. 8, 1997, p. 14

Consistent with these examples of a generic "he" the standard editorial style manuals in use today do not demand gender-neutrality. Grudem cites The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual (1994, p. 94) which directs, "use the pronoun his when an indefinite antecedent may be male or female: A reporter attempts to protect his sources. (Not his or her sources...)"

Finally, Grudem indicates that "major dictionaries all recognize generic ‘he,' not as archaic but as current English. The definition of ‘he' as a pronoun that is ‘used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown' is given in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, third edition (1992), p. 831. Sample sentences include, " ‘He who hesitates is lost,' ‘No one seems to take pride in his work anymore,' and ‘One should do the best he can.' "

Grudem concludes, "There is no dispute over whether such generic usage is understandable in ordinary English today." This booklet will equip clergy and lay church leaders to discuss this issue with clarity. It gives solid reasons for retaining gender-specific terms in accurate Bible translations, using evidence from biblical and contemporary writing to demonstrate that gender-neutral language is not required either by accurate translation practices or by current usage.