Communication is a two-way street.\u00a0 It involves the communicator\u2019s choice of language and a recipient’s interpretation of that language. Communication occurs in a\u00a0polis<\/em>, or what we usually call “a community.” Communicators make decisions when choosing which words they will use. \u00a0A communicator\u2019s life-experience, which includes culture, environment, and bodily structure, heavily influence those choices.\u00a0 Some words will be chosen, because they seem to express well what the communicator wants to expressed.\u00a0 Other words will be bypassed, because their connotations create obstacles to clarity.<\/p>\n The recipient of communication also makes choices when interpreting. Those choices are also heavily influenced by the recipient\u2019s life-experience. \u00a0Life-experiences act as lenses through we interpret messages.<\/p>\n Communicators encounter obstacles when they use words hoping to be clear only to find recipients interpret them to be saying something they don’t mean to say. \u00a0These obstacles create injury when the recipient interprets the words as offensive.\u00a0 Communicators are morally responsible to use language that tries to avoid unnecessary injury while communicating effectively.<\/p>\n Various Interpretive Lenses<\/strong><\/p>\n Communication problems are rampant not only because communicators and recipients have varying lenses of interpretation.\u00a0 Problems also arise because the meanings of words change over time. \u00a0Some words get attached to ways of thinking and acting with a history of being offensive.<\/p>\n Take, as a prime example, the use of masculine language in writing and speaking.\u00a0 While the communicator may mean to refer to all people when using the word \u201cmen,\u201d the recipient may interpret the word to refer only to males.\u00a0 Or, when the communicator uses \u201che\u201d any time to refer to a male or female, the recipient may interpret \u201che\u201d as referring only to males.<\/p>\n The obstacles in the case of gender-inclusive language are not merely about lack of clarity.\u00a0 The obstacles can become moral ones.<\/p>\n If I write, \u201cTom is having a claprocitex day,\u201d I will not be making myself clear.\u00a0 My interpreter will not likely know what \u201cclaprocitex\u201d means.\u00a0 But this will not be a moral issue, because the recipient will not likely know of any uses of \u201cclaprocitex\u201d that have caused pain or injustice.<\/p>\n The problem with using only masculine language, e.g., \u201che,\u201d \u201chim,\u201d \u201cmen,\u201d when referring to people in general, however, is that these words carry a variety of histories.\u00a0 Some histories include marginalizing or silencing women. When an interpreter who knows that history hears a communicator using “he” or “him,” the interpreter can rightly find the language morally offensive. \u00a0Women can be especially offended, because some have found themselves treated unfairly because of this exclusive use.<\/p>\n Click To Tweet<\/a><\/p>\n Is it the Intepreter’s Fault?<\/strong><\/p>\n Someone who inadvertently offends others through language may say, \u201cIf they would just give me a charitable interpretation, they would see that I don\u2019t mean harm.\u201d \u00a0In some cases, this may be true. But this retort cannot characterize a responsible ongoing<\/em>\u00a0dialogue.\u00a0 As soon as the communicator finds recipient offended, the communicator must ask about the moral implications of his or her language.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the issue of gender-inclusive language has been ridiculed as an attempt at political correctness.\u00a0 The issue is more than about trying to meet the linguistic standards of contemporary culture, however.\u00a0 The issue is sometimes moral.<\/p>\n Click To Tweet<\/a><\/p>\n Gender Inclusive Language for Christians<\/strong><\/p>\n The use of gender-inclusive language is especially important for Christians.\u00a0 After all, Christians want to heed the words of the Apostle Paul: \u201cLet no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear\u201d (Eph. 4:29).<\/p>\n Christian communication should build up others in love.<\/p>\n We would likely not consider a Christian loving if he or she insisted always on referring to others who express happiness as \u201cgay.\u201d\u00a0 Although the word can mean \u201chappy,\u201d most people in contemporary Western culture use this word to refer to homosexual men.\u00a0 Insisting on calling happy males \u201cgay\u201d seems uncharitable.<\/p>\n Or consider the word \u201cnigger.\u201d\u00a0 The word has been used throughout the history of the United States to keep those of African descent (and others with dark skin) from enjoying the privileges supposedly afforded all \u201cmen.\u201d \u00a0Over time, this word has become derogatory. It is now a taboo.\u00a0 We would not consider a Christian loving if he or she insisted upon using the word and arguing that others ought not be offended.<\/p>\n In a similar way, using \u201cmen\u201d when intending to refer to people in general has become offensive.\u00a0 Just as \u201cnigger\u201d could be used to keep African-Americans from enjoying equal privileges with whites, using masculine language can \u2013 often inadvertently \u2013 keep women from enjoying equal privileges with men.<\/p>\n![\"img_6109\"](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/IMG_6109-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n