Recently, Christianity Today published an article by someone called Christy Thornton which addressed the question of using “they” as a singular pronoun for God. If you are looking for a balanced, weighing up of the arguments on a complex linguistic and cultural phenomenon, then this isn’t the place to turn to. Thornton makes no attempt to see the broader picture and makes it very plain where she stands.
Introducing a nongendered, personal, singular pronoun into our theological discourse isn’t orthodox, in my opinion.
That’s a very strong statement and one which immediately condemns Christians across the world as non-orthodox. Let me explain. English and many other languages make a distinction in the third person singular between masculine and feminine (he and she). However, there are many other languages which do not make this distinction. In Kouya, there are two third person singular pronouns; “ɔ” which refers to humans (he, she or they) and “we” which refers to non-humans (it). So, in Kouya you don’t use different words for he and she, but you do use different words for a person and a table, or an elephant. Kouya speakers have to use a non-gendered pronoun for God and that apparently renders them non-orthodox. I’ve no idea how many other people are in the same boat, but it will be billions. Perhaps, there is a flaw in this reasoning.
One of my regular complaints is that Western theologians behave as though they are the ones who determine what is and what is not correct for the rest of the world. This is a perfect example of that tendency:
There is no such thing as a nongendered human and therefore no need to use a nongendered pronoun in reference to a person.
Excuse me? Kouya speakers would profoundly disagree? They get by perfectly happily using nongendered pronoun for people and don’t need to change.
Across the world’s languages, things get even more complicated. Languages such as French have grammatical gender which does not have a one-to-one relationship with biological gender (a table is not inherently female). In these situations it may be perfectly acceptable (and indeed grammatically essential) to refer to people using pronouns and articles which do not normally apply to their biological gender. Rather than just have two or three (masculine, feminine and neuter) genders, some languages have multiple noun-classes and men and women may be in the same class or may be differentiated according to all sorts of criteria other than gender. The Dyirbal language of Australia has a noun class that includes women, water, fire and violence. This has nothing to do with biological gender, but seems to be related to the concept of danger.
Gender is just one of many ways to differentiate between people and objects, the world’s languages are far richer and more diverse than Thornton seems to have grasped. Rather than imposing our own view of English grammar on the rest of the world, we would do well to learn from them about what is and what is not possible.
So let’s look specifically at English.
At present one of the liveliest language debates in our culture centers on personal pronouns. As a part of that conversation, some groups are expanding the semantic range of they to include a singular subject rather than only a plural subject—a linguistic leap previously nonexistent in the English language.
“A linguistic leap previously nonexistent in the English language.” Let’s fact check that, shall we? The Oxford English Dictionary has this to say.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
So that is previously non-existent before 1375!
Although they has a long history of being used as a singular pronoun, it fell out of fashion because “educated” people thought that it was wrong because you can’t use plural pronouns in this way in Latin. This imposition of Latin grammar on English has led to similar prohibitions such as not splitting infinitives and not ending sentences with prepositions, things forbidden in Latin but perfectly normal in English. What is interesting is that the people who get aerated about using they in the singular, don’t have the same problem with you, a similarly plural pronoun which is now almost universally used in the singular too. (In passing, I would suggest that losing the distinction between you-singular and you-plural in English is of far greater theological and pastoral significance than what pronoun we use for God). The thing is, if you are going to insist that we don’t use the plural pronoun they for God, then consistency means that you should also insist that we refer to God as thou.
The English language is evolving as all languages do. For a variety of reasons, singular they (which has a 650 year history) is becoming more common and squeezing out the singular pronouns in the same way that you replaced thou. Whether the transition will be a complete one, only time will tell. In the meantime, my own preference is to use he for God, but they is also perfectly grammatical. To insist, as Thornton does, that you must only use masculine pronouns and to do otherwise is unorthodox, is plainly nonsensical in the light of the way that language works around the world.
Let’s revisit Kouya in closing. As I mentioned, they have two singular third-person pronouns; “ɔ” for human referents and “we” for non-human ones. Which of these should be used for God? Well, in the case of the incarnate Jesus, it was clearly “ɔ”. The same was true of God the Father. However, when we came to the Holy Spirit, Kouya speakers insisted that we had to use the pronoun “we”. Now, I wanted to argue that the unity of the Godhead meant that we should use the same pronoun throughout, but my Kouya colleagues argued that using “ɔ” for the Spirit sounded wrong and didn’t make sense. In the end, we went with their natural intuition for the language. There would have been something very ugly about people telling them how their language should work. Those of us who are more advanced in years and who prefer our version of English to the emergent varieties that younger people use, would do well to remember this principle.
If someone doesn’t know how languages work, THEY should probably not pontificate on the subject.
The Kouyanet blog, podcast, videos and downloads are distributed (for the most part) free of charge in the hope that they will be of use to those who are interested in mission, theology and the world church. However, if you would like to support the site, you can do so by signing up to be a regular patron, buying something from our Wishlist or making a one off donation using the button below.
15 replies on “Pronouns for God”
Some of my Edinburgh colleagues often discuss the possibility of mounting a “mother-tongue theology” project. ([Mandarin] Chinese and [Scottish] Gaelic being the “tongues” giving rise in that discussion.) Posts like this one provide further compelling rationale for pursuing it! And this is just (“just”!) dealing with pronouns, let alone kinship terms or the vocabulary of “sin”. Etc, etc.
This is so necessary. There is so much mother-tongue theology being done through Bible translation and other contextualisation efforts, but no one is keeping track of it all – at least not as far as I am aware.
What I find most interesting in this lengthy discourse on languages is that you have not once discussed the pronouns used in the original Hebrew and Greek in which the Holy Spirit inspired the authors on the inerrant Word of God to write. An argument about which gender to use when referring to God seems somewhat incomplete when omitting what pronouns God sovereignly chooses for Himself.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Greek and Hebrew both have pronominal systems which simply cannot be replicated in other languages; including English. The only logical outworking of your statement is that we should read the Bible in Greek, Hebrew (and Aramaic, if we want to read all of Daniel). I’m a Bible translator, and I’m not convinced that I want to go there.
I do actually read the Scriptures in their original languages AND God is a masculine noun which is easily translated into English. Your article is accurate when translating into languages which DO NOT have masculine and feminine third person distinction, however to make the argument that the lack of such distinction in SOME languages makes it an error in languages that do is ridiculous. Likewise, you expose your real issue, wokeness, by addressing the use of they as a singular noun in English when it is clearly a non-standard usage.
Just be upfront and leave the whole, the Western Church line out of it!
It would help if you actually read the article. Because I said that I would prefer to use “he” for God.
I think you just proved my point.
I had a similar thought, that the pronouns used in a translation should match the original language if possible. Does Hebrew and Greek have gendered pronouns like English? If so, it makes sense to do so in English but obviously this won’t apply to all languages (as you demonstrated in the article).
As I said in my article, I would prefer to use “he” for God. However if language is shifting, then this may need to change and it isn’t for people of my generation to impose their views on others.
I’m a language teacher (Spanish/ESL) of forty years who has watched language use change drastically with each passing decade. I agree that not all languages use gendered pronouns like we do in English, and that is appropriate for those languages. However, I think it is even more important to look at the gender ambiguity that has filtered its way into North American and European culture and why there exists a desire to change the pronouns we use to address God. They don’t want any distinction between the sexes, they effectively want to “neuter” God, and they rebel against the fact that He made the sexes uniquely male and femaie. THAT is why I will never refer to God as “they.
I think the cultural context in this case is much more important than what other languages do with their pronouns.
Like you, I use “he” for God (as I said in the article). However, I’m not convinced that there is only one reason why the plural “they” is replacing the singular pronouns in English – though I agree that the issue that you raise is valid and concerning – there is also the issue of simplification which happened when plural “you” displaced singular “thee”. That is part of the process that is going on.
I have never been aware of how Kouya works until now, but I do know English pronouns. The author made two errors. First, she relied on Latinate grammar for her argument. You covered that point well. Second, she failed to mention that she was writing about English, not Kouya. Add that simple fact and most of your article need not be written.
Now concerning her claim and your counter claim about the use of “they”. In Late Modern English, “they” is used of a singular subject in one of three situations: 1) when the speaker or writer is confused about what to use with a word such as “each”;
2) when the speaker or writer does not know the gender of the subject;
3) when the speaker or writer is deliberately trying to make a point that the person has a non-binary gender. This last is a recent phenomenon.
You are correct that she made some mistakes in her argument, but you did as well in your statement of the use of “they”. One should not ignore the fact that “they” is not used when the subject’s gender is known and recognized as male or female (except as in rule 1). To do so is to ignore the whole reason for the discussion.
The original author made universal comments based on flawed assumptions about English. I disagree with your analysis of the use of they as a singular pronoun.
I wonder if anyone has considered the fact that, so far as I know, there is no common word for “parent” in Hebrew (I’m not as certain about Greek, since that’s not my field). In Hebrew, when there is no neutral/ungendered noun, the default is masculine (all those “sons of Israel”!!). And the default noun for parent is “father”; if one needed to refer to both parents, one didn’t say “parents” but “father and mother” — that is, both had to be specified. What are the implications of this for God as “father” I wonder?
Hi Eddie,
I’m sorry I don’t have anything good to say, but this post really rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, both you and Ms. Thornton are wrong about the word ‘they’, but you make the worse error. She’s wrong to say that there is no singular ‘they’ in English, but while you correct her on that, you fail to distinguish between a natural singular ‘they’ for a subject whose gender is unknown and the unnatural, progressive, top-down, elitist, revisionist singular ‘they’ which is a revolt against God’s created order. It has nothing to do with the natural evolution of a living language and everything to do with enforcing LGBTQ+ orthodoxy. Using ‘they’ for God falls into the second category.
The second thing I want to address is that you uncharitably faulted Ms. Thornton for an error which she didn’t make but you did. She wasn’t talking about every language in the world, she was clearly only talking about English, but you twisted her statement to make her say something she didn’t mean and then faulted her for it. Then you turned around and dragged Kouya pronouns into a conversation about English grammar as if the fact that the personal pronoun in Kouya is ungendered has any bearing whatsoever on what pronoun we should use for God in the English language!
Those of us who have lived in other countries and speak other languages are often able to spot linguistic fallacies that our monolingual brothers and sisters are oblivious to, but this article does worse than the one it was intended to correct.
Sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, Rick. I’m not going to defend all of my points; I’m happy for people to disagree on the internet rather than continually prolonging arguments. I’ll just make one point, as a native speaker of English, my use of “they” as a singular has never been limited to those situations where the gender of the referent is unknown and I’m certainly not part of any “top-down, elitist, revisionist” conspiracy. This may be one of those US/UK usage things, but I do not recognise your statements about English.