Today, gender inclusive language is one attempt to clarify for both sexes that females have equal presence and participation in any reference to humans as a whole. This is an example of how as a society changes in its self-concept, its language also changes. But let’s face it, inclusive language is still in the awkward stage. For example, “When the student cites an entry from an encyclopedia in [his/her; his or her] essay, [he/she; s/he; he or she] should follow the Chicago Manual of Style.” Makes for a beautifully flowing sentence, doesn’t it?
So until our language accurately and succinctly expresses gender inclusion, certain accommodations are called for. Both men and women have historically required reference points that help them come to know themselves. In the Bible’s case particularly, all of the human race needs to be able to see itself appropriately reflected in its narratives and poems on occasion. Thus, it has not only been since the 1970s and 80s that people have worked at gender inclusive communication. In its ancient languages, the scripture of Genesis 1:26-27 used the word “man” (Heb.: 'ādām; Grk.: anthrōpos) to identify the category of creature, then succinctly clarified the word’s scope of meaning.
Likewise, St. Basil was concerned that his 4th century listeners clearly understand who the “man” is in Gen. 1:27:
“Man!” says the woman, “And what about me? It is the male who was created, for,” she says, “He did not say ‘her’ who is man, but by the term ‘man’ He is shown to mean the masculine.” But no! in order that nobody . . . should take the expression “man” . . . to refer only to the male, the Scripture has added: “male and female He made them.”[1]We women, then, are not simply add-ons to God’s initial creation of the imago dei. As Basil went on to emphasize, “The woman also possesses, like the male, what has been created in the image of God.”[2]
[1] Johanna Manley, ed., trans., Wisdom. Let Us Attend (Menlo Park, Calif.: Monastery Books, 1997), 712.
[2] Ibid.
