Say what you will about the Christian God, but one thing at least is true: there's a lot more "hims" than there are "hers" in religious texts.
In 2011, thanks to the studious publishers of the world's most read version of the Bible, we'll find out if those "hims" were due to translation, or just written that way to begin with.
In 2002, Zondervan, publisher of the New International Version of the Bible, published a version of the NIV that used "inclusive language". Regardless of the motivations, there was an outcry. Scholars and traditionalists claimed that by changing the world of the Bible, they were also changing the word of God.
Who cares that the Bible has been translated from translations of translations that were done hundreds of years ago in now dead languages that would be impossible to understand in English? Gender neutral language is pure blasphemy, and a sinister use of the word of God.
As a result of the anger that God was potentially gender neutral, the NIV was frozen and no additional changes were made after the 2002 "gender inclusive" edition's release.
But now, president of Zondervan, Maureen Girkins (who, by the way, is a woman), said that it was time to re-visit the translations. She says the 2002 edition was "poorly handled" and that they want to "undo the damage".
But don't get too excited: it's not at all about feminism, it's about accurately portraying the word of God - as written by men thousands of years ago.
Zondervan will review "every single gender-related decision we have made and make sure we are putting God's unchanging word into English people are actually using". So not only are you getting appropriate pronouns from the original versions, but you're getting The Idiots Guide to Eons Old English. What's the point of reading Shakespeare if it's not in iambic pentameter?
Changes they are looking to make include changing the oft referenced "sons of God" to "children of God". Were the changes in the 2002 edition the right ones, or should it still have read "sons"?
But gender pronouns are not the only thing they're planning to change: in a previous edition they changed the line "I was stoned" to "I was pelted with stones". One guess as to why.
Like all aspects of culture, religion has to change and evolve with the times. It's a little difficult to encourage your religion to be more inclusive when the major text it is based on largely ignores women unless they're the mother of Jesus Christ, a whore, or a martyr.
So, do you think the Book of Lilith has a shot at making it in the next edition? One thing I'm pretty certain of: God's not going gender neutral anytime soon. He's going to be a "he" for a long time.