[first published in the monthly congregational “Notes” for August 2018]
Hardly a week goes by without the news bringing us reports of new attempts to push political correctness into everyday speech and actions, not least in the area of gender and its perceived separation from issues of human sexuality. The latest push is for the use of gender-neutral pronouns—now called gender-inclusive to make them more acceptable (because ‘inclusion’ is a good thing). So the State government, building on a 2016 directive for public servants to avoid the use of terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, now prefers the general plural ‘they’ in all cases where previously ‘he’ or ‘she’ would have been used. From overseas we read of threats to penalize students who do not submit to this new linguistic fashion and university staff suspended or dismissed for not conforming. So now there is a whole range of suggested new pronouns that could be used such as ‘ze’, ’ey’,’ae,’ each with their own set of paradigms.
The stated rationale for such ‘New-speak’ is that we do not want to risk offending anyone by mis-identifying them or denying the reality of their self-perception. Here is the real issue: one of identity. “Who am I, really?” “Am I who others say I am, or who I say (or perhaps and more likely) or who I feel, I am?” “Can anyone tell me who I am? “Today’s world cannot equip someone to answer those questions accurately and from a Christian & Biblical perspective we are not surprised at this inability, but merely changing one’s language will not make the problem go away. It will in the long run make it worse.
Biblically speaking, God created male and female because it was not good that Adam exist only in his maleness. Nor was it sufficient for Adam to reflect fully the Image of God that he should simply be given another male for company. And so God created Eve, and God (and Adam!!) declared this to be ‘very good’. Now, certainly this ‘good’ has suffered its own unique form of disruption because of the fall into sin, but our response must never be to declare that disruption to be good, normal or something to be encouraged, even as we would never declare any other post-fall disruption (e.g. death, disease, famine, sorrow, lies, power abuses etc.) good and something to be encouraged, especially as God has provided his own, sufficient, unique response to all sinfulness and its disrupting consequences: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It seems to us that the real issue with the present insistence on this contrived gender-neutral language is that it deliberately rejects maleness and femaleness as the created standard for human existence. It therefore deliberately rejects God as Creator and is just one more illustration of Romans 1:28-32. It is unarguable that since creation there are only X and Y chromosomes which combine to produce maleness or femaleness but this ‘revelation’ from nature is unhelpful to those who wish it were not so. And herein lies the issue: for one reason or another, people wish it were not so, just as in many other areas, people wish that God’s law did not apply to them. But it does.
Our response must be Gospel focused and clear, showing a love which is never proud, uncompassionate or smug. We may well encounter people who in their confusion have found passing comfort in the world’s assurance that it is ‘good’ that they are neither male nor female. We understand a desire to find acceptance and meaning. but we know that merely inventing new words will never answer the question, “Who am I?” That can only ever be answered by coming face to face with the transforming love of God in Jesus Christ. The only truly fulfilling answer to that question is given when someone can say, “Who am I? I am Someone for whom Christ lovingly died that I might be restored to Him in wholeness for eternity.” So, “Who are you?”