It is a holdover of our modernist past that we tend to see the work of translation as a science more than an art. We think we punch a word in from language a, and out pops the exact same word, except in language b. Not only do different languages not relate in that way, even one language, looked at from two different time periods, will have the same issues. The postmoderns are right also to note that language has a tendency to be used for power, rather than for clarity. On the other hand, words do in fact carry meaning. In the end, language is Trinitarian, a blending together of harmony and complexity.
Consider he. He, fifty years ago, was clearly understood to have two distinct but related meanings. One meaning was this- a male antecedent. That is, when we use the word he, we are referring to a male something that has already been referenced. The second meaning was this- an antecedent of unknown gender. “He just drove through that red light” could either mean, “That man just ran through that red light” or “That person, I don’t know if it was a man or a woman, just ran through that red light.” Over the past few decades women of both sexes have gotten their knickers in a twist over this common convention, a convention that long precedes the English language, and will, despite the efforts of some, outlast it. They seem to believe that the second use of the term is somehow a boon to male-kind, that it provides us with an unfair advantage. The first fruit of this silliness was the banishment of the use of he in the second sense in certain, mostly academic circles. Eventually it led us to the TNIV and other politically correct paraphrases of the Bible.
To be fair, one could argue that older translations which use he in the second sense can be misleading to readers in our day who use he only in the first sense. This position would suggest that because the meaning of he has changed, accuracy of translation, rather than ideological considerations, require the change. This does not, however, get to the heart of the issue, and begs the question of where the English language really is in our day.
First, the use of the singular masculine pronoun for antecedents of unknown gender is not at all unique to the English language. It is found, in fact, in both Greek and Hebrew. (Remember that when we are translating we have to understand both our own language and the language from which we are translating.) To put it more bluntly, God the Holy Spirit uses pronouns this way. We would be wiser to seek to be consistent with God than to be consistent with Gloria Steinem.
Second, every “gender neutral” English translation to date has gone well beyond seeking to avoid the use of he, when we do not know the antecedent’s gender. We have seen real distortions of the plain meaning of the text, driven by egalitarian sensibilities, rather than a passion for translating accuracy. We should not be surprised. The Committee on Bible Translation, the scholars who brought you the TNIV, have as one of their standards this notion, “The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.” At the root of this debate is different understandings not only of language and translation, but of Scripture, and inspiration. I strongly discourage folks from using the TNIV, or the current NIV. Even older versions of the NIV, while predating these kinds of gender changes, were put together by the same set of scholars. It is also, in my judgment, too close to a paraphrase.
Issues like this require wisdom. On the one hand, my friends on the other side of the aisle generally don’t see the trajectory of where they are headed. On the other hand, my friends on my side of the aisle tend to think those on the other side have already entered into the fullness of the folly they are flirting with. The former need to wake up and repent. The latter need to boldly confront the error, but accurately, and with neither pride nor hysterics. This is, in the end, scary stuff, grounded in more scary stuff, neo-evangelical feminism. At bottom, I fear it is all driven by a fear of the world. Wisdom, however, calls us to fear God.