quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?

---

That's me. And half the time, I'm not paying enough attention to the printed words to notice the silly changes. This is particularly bad in Chapel and Rejoice and Sing really went in for inclusive language.

Carys
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.

The Church of England decided not to inclusivize the BCP - classic texts remain as they were. This seems to me (a strong advocate of inclusive language) the best policy - but if a text can be sensitively recast, that's OK.

Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

As for us all knowing that 'mankind' means everybody - well lots of English speakers don't think that and that usage has in fact been ambiguous for centuries!
 

---

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
I actually prefer the unreconstructed O hush the noise, ye men of strife and hear the angels sing and I said in my haste, "All men are liars" .

It was drummed into me a long time ago (at a C of E Junior school) that mankind meant both men and women and that hymns and prayers refering to man or men usually meant women as well so I've never felt left out.

I find some of the newer songs more dodgy with their Statement sung by men followed by (usually simplified) Pale Echo to be sung by the women.

A few months ago we had a song that starts Men of faith, rise up and sing, and the vicar reassured us that men included women; we pointed out that the second verse started Rise up women of the truth. We haven't had that one since.
 

---

Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on :
 
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.

What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!

Many Regards
John
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!

Many Regards
John

---

There's nothing really wrong with singing about people or humankind. However, people and humankind won't scan or rhyme into hymns which originally had 'mankind'. This disrupts the flow (even if everyone remembers the 'right' words) and, I find, draws more attention to how it's been changed and annoys me far more than non-gender-inclusive language.

Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.

S

[ 04. June 2005, 20:13: Message edited by: xSx ]
 

---

Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on :
 
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-womens ordination, equal pay & conditions etc. but think that this assualt on our language was a step too far.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
man mankind doesnt always include women....

i usually think "Man "refers to men.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It's simply that people are so used to it that it's become accepted.

I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.

And yes, I do sometimes get annoyed when I hear terms like "mankind" or "chairman" (or even "Early Man"). They do feel exclusive. Women have been invisible for long enough. I'd use words like "humanity" or "chair" or "chairwoman" (if the person was female) and "Early Humans".
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Yes, we say, 'for us and our salvation' and I think most of us have got out of the habit of accidentally inserting the word 'men' out of habit.

I also wonder about why we now have to say: 'It is right to give thanks and praise' rather than 'it is right to give Him thanks and praise'. All the other references in Common Worship are to God being 'He', so why change that one?

Although it strikes me as very funny when we have to sing a gender-neutral phrase, and it bugs the choirmaster no end , if these phrases continue to be used then the next generation (the ones who are just being born now) will consider them to be the normal ones, assuming they still go to church and hear hymns sung. (Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
I agree with Charles - modern hymns/choruses should be written in inclusive language. They ought to reflect language as it is used today, to say things that need saying today.

Where you have old hymns that have survived (and plenty haven't) because they still something relevant I personally think they should be left alone. There are many examples, some already quoted in this thread, of the clumsy tinkering that has been done to "fix" things. As a result you end up with something awkward that draws attention to itself. An Australian friend told me that one hymn book over there has turned "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" into "Dear Loving Parent of Us All", which is no improvement in my humble opinion.
 

---

Posted by xSx (# 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:


I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Chorister:

(Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. Chorister and 'It is right' etc at the opening of the eucharistic prayer...

'man' was never used there before the 1970's - it was a Series3 / ASB invention. Common Worship has gone back to the BCP ("It is meet and right so to do") which is itself a pretty accurate translation of what the mediaevel Latin missal said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Are there really women who are up in arms about the unintended male bias in hymn words (as opposed to intended ones which is a different story)? Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?

---

quote:

---

The fact that it is horrible amalgam of Latin and Anglo-Saxon roots? - Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think anybody would be offended if they did forget to say "and Women"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodric:
... Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-..., equal pay & conditions etc. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.

---

Except "for us and our salvation" is not the equivalent of "for us men and our salvation" -- the former doesn't say who "we" are. The latter prevents "us" being taken to mean "us Methodists" or "us Orthodox" or "us Elect" or "us Calvinists" which is an unfortunate but very real tendency. I'd far rather say something totally clunky like "for us human beings and for our salvation" than to leave out the noun altogether. I think that is one place where we mess with "what has been handed down" to our peril.

---

Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.

Yes "mankind" used to be inclusive. But today it's not, at least in large parts of the world. And you can't put the genie back in the bottle by screaming "it is so, it is so." If a bunch of women want to proclaim that they are men, that's fine with me. But I don't know many around here who do. And for men like me to tell women that they ought to shut up and accept that a word used one way in all the rest of their life means something contrary in church... no, not going to do that.

I think the most important thing said on this thread was Sine's point that as a white male, it's awefully hard to understand what perfectly "inclusive" language looks like to people who aren't. But sometimes we have to try.

John
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
I am an ardent supporter of inclusive language. I choose not to use language that a)appears to exclude more than half the human race and b)implies that men are the normative form of person, and women derive their personhood from men. I tend not to use gender terms for God, and when I do, I tend to alter between he and she, as well as using metaphors from both genders. I discourage my students from using exclusive language for people and for God. I believe that inclusive language, rather than being a feminist plot, is a prophetic movement in the life of the church, calling us to repent of past injustices and enable women and men to be freed from gender bias and stereotyping.

For the record, I spent my yoof in a BCP church using the Book of Common Praise which is about the most gender exclusive language combination you can get. Frankly, if I can get used to gender inclusive language, anyone can. The change, however, must be accompanied by good teaching. Human nature causes us to reject anything new, so church leadership ought to encourage congregations to be agents of change rather than victims of change. I think, with good leadership, a church can move to gender inclusive language in one year with relatively little reaction.

(I now sing "Dear Father, Lord of humankind" without noticing - and my first solo as a boy soprano was "Dear Lord and Father of mankind")
 

---

Posted by GloriaGloriaGloria (# 8017) on :
 
As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I can live with the traditional language in almost every case, but the "for us men" really bugs me. I guess it's the just too close combination of those two words, "us" and "men." No amount of rationalization about the history of language can prevent me blushing. And that's not a good thing when I am trying to concentrate during worship.

I also have trouble with that one hymn (used generally at ordinations and mission festivals) that keeps hammering on God, verse after verse, to "Send MEN (of various types and qualifications) where You Yourself will go." The word is used so often and so forcefully that it becomes impossible to overlook.

I tried to get these thoughts across to the folks on the hymnal revision committee where I served (the only woman), but I'm not sure they ever really understood. It's not a "feminist agenda." It's the gut-level emotional problem of blushing in the middle of a worship service.

I did try to get this across once by reminding them that, if we used the English of a thousand years ago in its orginal meaning, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to look at their childhood pictures and tell them what cute little girls they had been. THAT led to a short silence.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
The problem with non-inclusive language is that down there at a momentary, sub-concious level when it's used, one does picture what is named. I read about a study where a number of grad students were asked to draw Neanderthal Man; they did indeed draw only men. When I sang "Good Christian Men, Rejoice!" I'd have a quick vision of a bunch of 19th cent. guys singing. I really, really wish that English had some gender neutral pronouns to apply to God or human beings.

I remember reading Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness in which she posits a race of humans who are hermaphrodites. Most of the time they are not either male or female. When they go into a natural period of being sexually active they can go either way but not at their conscious discretion. In her intro she spoke of struggling with the pronouns and finally throwing up her hands and settling on the inclusive masculine. She didn't feel it was a total success and it wasn't. No matter that she tried to keep their personalities as non-stereotypical as possible, I still couldn't help visualizing them as male. Later she wrote a short story about the planet's royal ruler in exile. She called the character the King but used she/her as the pronouns. The dichodomy this caused was much more successful in creating a differently sexed person.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see myself as a feminist (proof statement: I've declined to take any feminist theology courses at theology college). Up in arms, no. But do I need inclusive language? Yep. The church went out of its way in my childhood to let me know that my chromosomes made me a second-class citizen in it's eyes and a bogus sort of "separate by equal" in God's eyes. "Mankind" does NOT include me as a woman, as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wesleyswig:
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Like it or not, you're a feminist. It's not a bad word, nor a bad thing to be. I will never for the life of me understand why any woman who objects to second-class status would demur for a moment at calling herself a feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
To be a feminist (in their eyes) means that you go to extremes, and you never shave your legs or wear makeup on principle.

---

HEY! I resemble that remark! Or maybe I'm just lazy.
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.

---

So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.

---

So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.

---

If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.

---

quote:

---

English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, it matters. And why do you think the bias is unintentional?

---

I agree with this absolutely. "Mankind" means "humanity" (which is a much less awkward word than "human kind") because for centuries men were the "normal adult people".

In my lifetime, I've been told by the church that I had to be a "son of God" and absolutely could not be a "daughter of God". I've been told that I was created in God's image because I was created in man's image and man was created in God's image. I've been told that God never calls women to teach his word to people in general but only to other women and children (i.e. the "not grown up" and the "not quite grown, not quite responsible" people).

In my lifetime, I've been told by the secular world that they couldn't waste resources teaching me advanced maths and science in school because I was a girl. I've been told by an office manager to "Smile. That's what women are for."

The word and concept of "mankind" actually excluded women in important ways and that's why the language needs to change.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Seeker963
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 

quote:

---

Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out.

---

John Holding And Jugular

quote:

---

As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"

---

Gloria x3

quote:

---

Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???

---

Just try saying "for us whites and for our salvation" and see where it gets you!

Well, for some of us, it feels that exclusive!

(And no, I don't mind the fine old hymns, but as for modern songs that are male-orientated, I could happily lynch the lyricists )
 

---

Posted by Melon (# 4038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
To bring in gender as it exists in French or German and insist that it somehow matters is like saying it somehow bears on Japanese that there are definite and indefinite articles in English--the Japanese only have to care about this if they want to speak English.

---

quote:

---

No, battleships and the church are not female, as they would have to have a sex to be female. Neither are they feminine, as they have no gender; English nouns do not have gender. It has been a convention to refer to a ship and to the church as "she," just as it used to be conventional in the US to give hurricanes women's names. None of these conventions give ships, the church or hurricanes gender.

---

quote:

---

They are properly referred to by the word "it," which has no gender.

---

quote:

---

It is frequently ridiculous and sometimes even wrong to impose inclusive language on texts which arose out of sexist societies; wrong when such an imposition obscures the meaning of the text or gives the effect of rewriting history. But for the reasons Ariel so eloquently laid out, we need our language today to be inclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wesleyswig:
This isnt true "liberal hankee squeezing" instead it is a realisation of the world around us and that if anyone new came through the door one sunday and saw us all singing
1) That all men/ mankind were saved
2) To Israel be the glory

They are going to be scared and worried with good reason!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
today there is no way to think of "Israel" without thinking of Palestine and the Middle East question somewhere along the line.

---

There may be no way for you to do that, and in this case I share your concern, but who gets to speak for "everyone" on these matters? Depending where you do your survey, I think you will find that there are as many "everyone"s who feel alienated by the rewriting of classic hymns as "everyone"s who feel alienated by the original versions (and a lot of people who just don't care either way but wish the Church could spent its time on something more useful).
 

---

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
I was irritated in our service this morning when we sang "At the name of Jesus" from Common Praise. It appeared untouched by the editorial committee, so I sang verse 5 (at my usual fortissimo) "Name him, Brothers, name him", from memory, only to find a lot of people singing "Name him, Christians, name him". . This feels extremely PC motivated and for no other reason, as they left the next line (with love strong as death) alone. This doesn't fit the metre and can be changed to "with love as strong as death", which would indicate some intelligent thought in the editorial process.

The whole inclusive / exclusive language area is a minefield where anyone (male / female, straight / gay, white / non-white) can find words to be offended by, if they look hard enough. Sometimes you don't have to look very hard, sometimes you have to look very hard indeed, but those determined to be offended will indeed do so.

PS. My view of equality is in my sig....
 

---

Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodric:
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.

---

So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.

---

If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Traditional English ways of referring to gender follow other languages, notably the ones on which it draws. There is nothing natural about inclusive language, it's a deliberate attempt to redesign language for possibly dubious ideological reasons, so it is entirely reasonable to take a step back from that project and see what it looks like in the wider scheme of human language.

And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
Learning new words to a song? How hard is it? Really, if you consider the cost of learning a few new words to a song against the benefit of not pissing people off by careless use of language, how can anyone come to the conclusion that not changing the words is the best option?

---

quote:

---

You're right. When the Bible says that we are all sons of God, it means that we all benefit from what at the time were uniquely male inheritance rights. That's a radically liberating message for women, and we can't have that. By reverting to "child", we emasculate (sic) the whole thrust of that dangerous feminist Paul's argument in Galatians 3:26, thus undermining the most famous feminist proof-text in the Bible, Gal 3:28, and assert our conviction that the blessing is reserved for men. The natural order of things is restored!

Oh, wait, that wasn't your point, was it?

Maybe we should rewrite ancient history to be consistent with our linguistic hang-ups?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eloise:
Aside from the fact that it's not all that eccentric not to have a gender system for nouns <snip> This character is now totally normative - so a) it can be done, and b) other languages have tried it too, it's not just crazy english-speakers!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Actually, I rather think this proves the point. While you are correct about first century property rights etc. and the theology of Paul referring to 'sons' of God etc., today this is not part of English culture (nor of other English speaking cultures I'd guess) and so 'sons of God' comes across as male. Recasting into 'child' in the song I cites is therefore not a distortion of the Biblical message but rather an attempt to make it clear for this generation.

---

• They substitute "son or daughter" for "son", at which point the passage makes no logical sense anymore (there is neither male nor female because, err, we are sons and daughters...)
• They conclude that everything they have heard about Paul is true, he really did hate women
• They stop singing the new song because it is heretical
• (most likely) They stop trying to reconcile what happens in church with what they read in the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
...

I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
...

I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...

---

Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Unfortunately, feminism has got a bad name

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
But concern for others is really necessary. Both those others who - because they have suffered in some way - are unduly sensitive to suggestions of inferiority where none is intended. And those others who are attached to the old forms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
...

I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...

---

Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.

---

You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
...

I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...

---

Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.

---

You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.

---

So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?

---

Um, I'm not sure what we're talking about, Sharkshooter. It seems to me that this post directly contradicts your assertion that one cannot use the word "human" to include women because it contains the word "man".

So which is it? That the word "man" is genderless? Or that the word "human" doesn't include women by virtue of being masculine? I don't think you can have it both ways.
 

---

Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on :
 
Sorry for the long quote-inclusion. I tried to edit but missed the edit window.

Sharkshooter, I could be wrong, but you seem to have taken offence at my suggestion that the word "humanity" is more natural and normal these days and should be used in preference to "mankind". I really can't see how that suggestion could be offensive, but if it does offend you, I'll take note of the fact. Otherwise this conversation seems to be bordering on the surreal.
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Melon mentioned midwife. I understand that the 'mid' bit means 'with.' A midwife is someone, male or female, who is skilled to be with a wife as she gives birth. It implies that mothers will be wives, but it does not imply that birth assistants will be female.

I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.

Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.

William Tyndale was strangled to death and his body burnt for printing vernacular New Testaments. We remain a Word centred faith. I say language matters.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

So if this kind of thing is going on constantly anyway, there seems to be little reason not to extend the practice to inclusive language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't accept the ideologies of feminism, so I don't feel the need to change my way of speaking in line with the dictates of feminism

---

quote:

---

I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

quote:

---

I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

quote:

---

I don't accept the ideologies of feminism,

---

quote:

---

Seems pretty clear to me that inclusive language isn't "really necessary" - because the Church got along without it for hundreds of years.

---

quote:

---

That's fine until your congregation stumbles across Galatians 3, on which the song you mention is based, and which relies upon exclusive language as the basis of its argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
lots of early Christian theology in Latin and Greek was inclusive. The classic example is the Nicene Creed which seems to deliberately prefer inclusive words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.

---

Now this representation of what I supposedly think is exactly the sort of ideological fascism that I reject out of hand. It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously. Thankfully the world of "not feminism" is a bit larger than this constrictive prison house represents it as being.

---

quote:

---

The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously.

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that a big part of art (and especially liturgy) is its ability to communicate. Where it not for the communicative potency hymns and prayers would be nothing more than pretty noise. Might make great ambient music cd's, but would be lousy worship. Art and meaning aren't, I would argue, in opposition. Rather, the artistic dimension of "good liturgy" is fundamentally damaged if it conveys - however unintentionally - messages which serve to exclude half of those who participate in it.

"For us and for our salvation" or even "for us men and women and for our salvation" might be linguistically less elegant than the traditional words, but fundamentally what is the purpose of the creed? Is it to string together pleasing sounding words, or is it to express truths about the nature of God and his creation? The latter, it seems to me, is more important when it comes to writing good liturgy.

Peronel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:

If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
to make the conscious choice to use language that demeans other people is plainly quite wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!

If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.

---

Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.

And it isn't inclusive. No amount of special pleading here can change that. The ordinary everyday meaning of "man" and "men" in modern English is male.

And Melon, most languages do not have the kind of grammatical gender we are talking about here. Its a little indo-European peculiarity. Other kinds of languages often (not always) have other kinds of systems but they don't alway map on to our ideas of grammatical gender very closely at all. And many of them have nothing resembling it.

Anyway, its all irrelevant because modern English does not have grammatical gender. Insofar as ships are described by female words it is because we metaphorise them as female - a matter of sex, not gender. The word "man" is not masculine in English, it is male. We only have the barest remnants of grammatical gender. Treating English as if it were Latin produces sloppy English.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
HoosierNan - a girl with Attitude!

A slight tangent - but pertinent to the development of modern and future discourse, if not the past - what is the current received wisdom when writing about people of both sexes? When I used to write essays, the thinking was first that you should use he/she, then it changed to using she and he interchangeably, then to using either he or she (but usually she) with a rider that this was for ease of use, not for discriminatory purposes.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.

Timothy
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female

---

But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.

---

quote:

---

to boldly go where no man has gone before

---

quote:

---

to boldly go where no one has gone before

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
to boldly go where no man has gone before

---

quote:

---

It has only been relatively recently that it stopped being acceptable for "man" or "men" to be used as generic pronouns that did not necessarily indicate gender.

---

quote:

---

The church has taught the inferior nature of women, a teaching that - intentionally or not - has been reinforced by the gendered nature of its language. That's why inclusive language is important. It's not about whether "Dear Lord and Father of us all" is artistically superior to "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind"; clearly it isn't, and damaging old and well-loved hymns to make them politically correct isn't something that should be undertaken lightly. Rather, it's about how the church uses language now to express the nature and relative significance of men and women, and what that says about my redemption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,

quote:

---

to boldly go where no man has gone before

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?

---

quote:

---

to boldly go where no man has gone before

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Using Star Trek as an example of how "men" can be gender-inclusive is nonsensical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

I like to wonder, if Tereshkova had gone before Gagarin, whether she would have been described as the first man in space. If it had happened in the 1460s she might have been. In 1960s, no way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

I am just trying to show how forced and sometimes ridiculous some of the arguments are. Obviously, I wasn't communicating well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
In the olden days (not any more nowadays) the favorite U.S. reductio ad absurdum against inclusive language went something like this:

"I think I shall go out to my person-box to see if the person-person has brought me any person today."

But in actual practice, all one need say is of course "I think I shall go out to my mailbox to see if the mail-carrier has brought me any mail today."

Over the years, one remains sensitive, while learning to eschew over-sensitivity.

Leetle M.

---

Although I know this view is supportive, I'd like to start at the beginning here. My original statement was along the lines of "Let's use the word 'humanity' as it is commonly understood to include both men and women whereas the term 'mankind' is no longer commonly understood to be inclusive and is understood by many to be sexist".

The reply, which is totally illogical to me, was "You can't use the word 'humanity' because it has 'man' in it." This is supposed to make my view look ridiculous?

I never said I was offended by the masculine. I never said I wanted to obliterate the letter-sequence m-a-n. I never said that I wanted to get rid of the the words 'man', 'male', or even more ridiculously 'mail'. It's very telling what people infer.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!

Sorry!

Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo (emphasis mine):
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totally disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.

---

quote:

---

Ariel said:
Well a) it does look rather old-fashioned and b) it comes across as patriarchal which are two reasons why people don't go to church as often as they used to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!

Sorry!

Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....

---

Gosh, Leetle M. No. You didn't get anything wrong. Sorry, I knew your post was supposed to be supportive.


It just seemed to me that the "male" "mail" thing was exactly the sort of argument I was being told I was using when I wasn't doing anything of the sort.

Forgive me for taking advantage of your supportive post to make a point.
 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

Several people have called you on this, and as you haven't responded yet, I'll do it again.

---

quote:

---

Since you object to having your identity as a man subsumed under the umbrella of "person", can you not appreciate that a woman has as much and even more reason to object to having her identity subsumed under the umbrella of "man".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

On the contrary, the "liberal" mainline churches that fiddle with the words to make themselves "inviting and inclusive" seem to be the ones hemorrhaging members.

The mega-Bible-churches that are growing by leaps and bounds seem to be quite straightforward in their maintenance of male-headship doctrines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But one of my complaints against some types of feminism would be that it asks men and women to take offense where none was intended, on grounds that have been asserted rather than argued for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:

What about the pronoun "one" - as in "Blessed is one who...." as opposed to "Blessed is he/she who....."?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:

And we're still waiting to hear what exactly you reject about feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.

---

Ruth, pre or post language reform, it would never occur to me to call you "dear" or "honey"; or any woman for that matter. But if someone asked me to change my way of speaking on grounds of courtesy and at a personal level, all things being equal, I would.

On the other hand, if I was addressing the issue on a public bulletin board, I might suggest on that bulletin board that there were other ways of viewing the situation rather than being offended by it—not the specific example you raise, but a number of the others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
HT, I wonder if you have actually asked any of your fellow parishioners whether they feel that "men" refers to them? For all you know, they are standing there replacing "men" with "girls" like HoosierNan.

---

quote:

---

JJ Ramsey said
I don't buy it. The liberal mainline churches aren't declining because they are using inclusive language. Their problems are many, but that isn't one of them.

---

quote:

---

I have never even heard of the "mega-Bible-churches" insisting on male headship.

---

quote:

---

And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Gordon, you seem to be happy to retreat from any of your opinions when challenged on them

---

quote:

---

Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?

---

Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:

"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".

The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.

---

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?

---

Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:

"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".

The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.

A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
That's because, in common usage, feminine-specific forms are all but dead. You can't refer to a woman as an aviatrix or a poetess with a straight face. Those words are obsolete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!

If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.

---

Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female

---

But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.

---

The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,

quote:

---

to boldly go where no man has gone before

---

with the intro from Star Trek: The Next Generation,

quote:

---

to boldly go where no one has gone before

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totallty disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
The right to power is irrelevant. There is power. Who decides what job someone will do? Whom they will marry? How they will dress, spend their time? The right to make decisions of this sort, the power to do so, will be exercised by someone. In a patriarchal society it will be exercised by men but not women. That is what patriarchal means. It is clearly oppressive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
I want to be very sure I'm not misinterpreting your point, Gordon. Are you saying that Christian patriarchies are not oppressive because they are divinely ordained? That while no one has an innate right to power to rule over others, God has invested that right in men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.

Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.

---

I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.

A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.

---

What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.

---

You'll have to explain that. To me it's obvious that if someone exercises power over another person they are being oppressive. Patriarchy is men arrogating power that might otherwise be exercised by women. Please explain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But what is the power in a church situation that is being threatened by inclusive language? Do some fear there is only so much salvation to go around?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.

---

I'm sure that you are not suggesting that because I say "for us men and our salvation" in church that I think women are unsaved or secondary in God's salvific grace?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
those arguing for inclusive language sometimes suggest that men and women should share equal power. As I don't believe this to be the case, I tend to avoid inclusive language.

---

quote:

---

I think both sides of this discussion would probably feel that their language should reflect their theological assumptions, without necessarily feeling obliged to impute nasty motives to those who hold another view from their own.

---

"Nasty"? Your word, not mine. Guilty conscience, Gordon? But if it's not about power, and power isn't about allocation of resources, I wish you'd tell me what you do think it's about?

I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Gordon --

I guess I'm the first Host to read your request. As a Host, I see no problems with what you have been posting. You are all keeping your tempers, and as long as that continues, all is well.

John Holding
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on :
 
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.

That way, we could get around the whole "men" issue without making a problem. (Unless, of course, there is concern that plants, animals, viruses, minerals, and elements might also be saved, and therefore we must be SURE to say it is only humans! )
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." *snip*

---

quote:

---

I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Drat that Eve and her apple!

(I rather believe that's in Genesis too, and was much used at one time...but surely not in this day and age. Surely not.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
What "clarity about the shape of the relationship" are you trying to preserve? That God is our Creator? That both male and female are created in God's image?

---

quote:

---

The reason the language in Gen 1:27 is plain in its intent is because the phrase "man" is immediately followed by the modifying phrase "male and female" - so it's an inclusive language construction.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if this is a slightly risky admission. If it is plain in Genesis 1, then it is at least possible, given appropriate explanation, that it may be plain elsewehere—for example in church, where in some cases they say "for us men and our salvation" without apparent difficulty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
RuthW: Unlike your examples of "dear", "honey" and "sweetie" (which are not examples of gender exclusive language, but examples of the language of endearment inappropriately applied), your example of "for us men and for our salvation" is actually an example where a person's feeling offended is not in and of itself sufficient reason to change the language.

---

quote:

---

If it was sufficient, then I could argue that I would be offended by the language being changed, and that would be sufficient to retain traditional usage. I think you'd agree that me being offended in such a situation would not be enough to override the need for change. So 'being offended' is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned. At this point I agree with John Cleese: "You do not have the right not to be offended".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty John:
the noun I fill in when I hear "for us and for our salvation" is not "men" or even "humans" but "sinners"—we who need saving. It seems like that's a more natural way to take it than than hearing it and thinking "us" refers to those who are present or those belonging to the particular church in question—does anyone really do that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty John:
the noun I fill in when I hear "for us and for our salvation" is not "men" or even "humans" but "sinners"—we who need saving. It seems like that's a more natural way to take it than than hearing it and thinking "us" refers to those who are present or those belonging to the particular church in question—does anyone really do that?

---

I don't think it would be difficult at all to find someone who believed that God came to save only certain people, and therefore that "for us and for our salvation" means only Christians, or only a particular type of Christian, or only people of a certain ethnicity.

---

quote:

---

(From Hooker's Trick) Ariel said no one goes to church anymore because the churches are patriarchal (and we know this because we say "goodwill toward men").

---

quote:

---

Gordon Cheng: "Power" is one of those "boo" words that as soon as a man lays claim to it, that man has automatically sided with the oppressor. Whereas I keep trying to say that the exercise of power may or may not be oppressive. Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.

---

quote:

---

Hookers Trick: The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."

Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!

What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.

---

But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".

I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Given that these attitudes exist, I think "for us and for our salvation" is not only a faulty translation (there is a noun in the Greek specifying that it's not just us, but us humans-not-animals), but a dangerous one as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."

Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!

What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.

---

quote:

---

You can probably imply my meaning from this sentence. However, the fact that you can work out the meaning doesn’t change the fact that I have used “imply” when I should have used “infer”. That the correct meaning can be deduced doesn’t mean that the text is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

Ruth - one thing I hated for years was the habit which is so prevalent in Britain of calling women "love" and "darling" or some similar endearment - when the person doesn't know you and is maybe just handing your your change in a shop or a bus ticket or something. I mentioned to female friends how much I disliked this but reactions tended to be "I think it's nice."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.

---

But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".

I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.

---

I think it?s a pretty poor point.

The argument seems to be, ?We can assume that people can read meaning into the text to work out that ?men? includes women, but we can?t assume that they can read meaning into the text to work out that ?us? doesn?t mean only white people (or whatever group we identify with?. It makes no sense to assume people are smart or stupid, just to benefit our own position.

If we are working on the basis that people will read meaning into the text (and there is little alternative) then we should use the most appropriate text in the first place. The most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Given that these attitudes exist, I think "for us and for our salvation" is not only a faulty translation (there is a noun in the Greek specifying that it's not just us, but us humans-not-animals), but a dangerous one as well.

---

Given that sexist attitudes exist, it would seem to me more dangerous to have a faulty translation that uses "men" where women should be included.

[Aside]Surely all creation is saved, not just humans?[/Aside]

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."

Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!

What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.

---

Another rather dodgy argument, it seems to me. Just because the correct interpretation can be made from a text doesn't mean that the text is correctly written.

Suppose a female lawyer came across a sentence something like, "If a lawyer suspects a conflict of interests may occur between two of his clients, then he should cease to act for one or other of the clients.?

That female lawyer can probably work out that ?his? and ?he? in the sentence apply to her, but that doesn?t mean the sentence isn?t badly written, with the sexist assumption that lawyers are always male.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".

I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.

---

I think it’s a pretty poor point.

The argument seems to be, “We can assume that people can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘men’ includes women, but we can’t assume that they can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘us’ doesn’t mean only white people (or whatever group we identify with”. It makes no sense to assume people are smart or stupid, just to benefit our own position.

If we are working on the basis that people will read meaning into the text (and there is little alternative) then we should use the most appropriate text in the first place. The most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative.

---

Sorry, I mustn't've been clear.

What I was getting at is that the lack of some form of descriptor of people could cause problems as well.

I agree with you entirely that the "most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative."

Regards & God bless,
Ian.

[ 07. June 2005, 07:19: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
[And sorry Carys for not attributing it to you...I got rather confused as to who said what: I should've looked back! ]
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Gordon Cheng wrote:

quote:

---

I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.

Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I still think if you try and think of a white congregation saying

"For us whites and for our salvation"

you might get an understanding of how some women feel about exclusive language.

Or, if that is too difficult, try imagining yourself (if white) going into a black (or Asian) church and hearing

"For us blacks and for our salvation"

I am not trying to be funny, or derail all the very academic arguments that have, very interestingly, been put here. I am just trying to get some of you to understand what it feels like to be regarded, even if unconsciously, as a second class Christian, as women have been historically regarded for centuries. And still are, in some churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?

If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.

---

So those of us who have articulated that we find this language unhelpful are either making it up, or are looking for reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image? Uhhh, thanks.

 

---

Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
"The male embraces the female" in language seems to be a common argument on this thread...

This was also the argument used by a former research assistant of mine: first language not English, but a language that has no (natural) gender, very very intelligent woman with extremely good English and a need to be right, which was almost always borne out in her speech and actions. But occasionally not.

One day she told us: "Elena thinks we should carry on with the protocol as we've been doing. I spoke to him yesterday on the telephone".

Now, if you are an English speaker, and someone tells you this verbally, you come out of it very baffled. Especially if you have met Elena and admired her elegant dresses. Who precisely did she speak to on the telephone? Perhaps it was the driver who was sitting outside and who had no telephone, but who had been mentioned in the previous sentence?

But the assistant's argument was "the male pronoun implies the female pronoun". Ours was "we have no idea what you are talking about when you do that; so it can't be correct". Her riposte was to show us where it says in the dictionary that the male pronoun implies the female pronoun.

Were we wrong to be confused? Am I wrong to be confused when I hear "brothers" in church and wonder why I'm not allowed to do whatever it is we're singing about?

(Incidentally our parish is fairly high church, has liberal theology, uses inclusive language for the most part, and is very popular.)
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodric:
I have had a good old chat with some of the older ladies I know about this (believe me I have plenty in my church) - and most of them detest the move to inclusive language. One of them said to me - "man" and "men" only became exclusive when the feminists told us this was so, until then we understood the inclusive nature of these terms.

---

quote:

---

Definitely the emphasis on men; men as leaders, men as the head of their family, men as everything. Women weren't so much second-class citizens as not even mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
The point, Josephine, Mousethief and I (though no-one seems to have noticed my first post on this point) have been making is not insisting on the use of 'men' but saying that merely omitting it is at least as bad as using 'men'. We have suggested a more accurate modern alternative (humans). The point about all creation being saved is not the point being made in the greek at this point (I did illustrate the Greek way back on page 1, but I'm running horribly late already).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

No. That is not the assumption behind `he' and `his' in that sentence, the reason for the use of he/his is that the `male embraces the female'. I agree one might infer from it that lawyers are all male, but I would argue that is not what the writer was (necessarily) implying!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.

Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.

---

What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?

---

It's just the same as hymns. Titles and names put words into other people's mouths. How I hate the margarine that calls itself 'I can't believe it's not butter.' I can't refer to it like that without advertising it to myself!

I wouldn't refer to a woman as a chairman any more than I would call a black person a darkie, whatever they told me they preferred.

---

quote:

---

The term manageress is interesting, because it ought to parallel manager, but in practice is only used of women who run canteens or shops. A female bank manager (now that we have them) would never be called a manageress.

---

quote:

---

((Incidentally, I originally wrote about a woman bank manager. This is a familiar construction: woman minister, woman doctor, but is never used the other way round. You never hear of a man minister, or men doctors. It bothers me. Is the claim that there are female ministers too radical, because it suggests that minister might be female, rather than just claiming that women can be (masculine stand in) ministers?))

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I still think if you try and think of a white congregation saying

"For us whites and for our salvation"

you might get an understanding of how some women feel about exclusive language.

Or, if that is too difficult, try imagining yourself (if white) going into a black (or Asian) church and hearing

"For us blacks and for our salvation"

I am not trying to be funny, or derail all the very academic arguments that have, very interestingly, been put here. I am just trying to get some of you to understand what it feels like to be regarded, even if unconsciously, as a second class Christian, as women have been historically regarded for centuries. And still are, in some churches.

---

It is not quite a direct and fair comparison is it? The usage of "white" and "black" has always been exclusive - while the usage of "man" has been inclusive. I have had a good old chat with some of the older ladies I know about this (believe me I have plenty in my church) - and most of them detest the move to inclusive language. One of them said to me - "man" and "men" only became exclusive when the feminists told us this was so, until then we understood the inclusive nature of these terms. I guess that is a cause issue though and not one of effect which you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
[And sorry Carys for not attributing it to you...I got rather confused as to who said what: I should've looked back! ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
As the brain wakes up, another thought...

Rereading this, it appears those who defend non-inclusive language are arguing two things. Firstly that "men" does include women, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. And secondly, that changing to inclusive language risks damaging gospel truths.

You can't have it both ways. Either "for us men and women and our salvation" means the same as "for us men and for our salvation", or it does not.

If the meaning is fundamentally the same, then the only problem with inclusive language is aesthetic. Indeed, as the meaning of language evolves and changes, traditional forms are at risk of drifting away from their original intended meaning. This has already happened with the BCP, where to "minister indifferently"* no longer means what it did when written.

If the two do mean different things, then perhaps those detractors who dismiss the church as a historic bastion of male oppressors are right.

Peronel

*working from memory and don't have a bcp handy - still in bed. It may be to judge indifferently. Either way, indifferently used to mean without bias, and now conveys something very different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
"The male embraces the female" in language seems to be a common argument on this thread...

This was also the argument used by a former research assistant of mine: first language not English, but a language that has no (natural) gender, very very intelligent woman with extremely good English and a need to be right, which was almost always borne out in her speech and actions. But occasionally not.

One day she told us: "Elena thinks we should carry on with the protocol as we've been doing. I spoke to him yesterday on the telephone".

Now, if you are an English speaker, and someone tells you this verbally, you come out of it very baffled. Especially if you have met Elena and admired her elegant dresses. Who precisely did she speak to on the telephone? Perhaps it was the driver who was sitting outside and who had no telephone, but who had been mentioned in the previous sentence?

But the assistant's argument was "the male pronoun implies the female pronoun". Ours was "we have no idea what you are talking about when you do that; so it can't be correct". Her riposte was to show us where it says in the dictionary that the male pronoun implies the female pronoun.

Were we wrong to be confused? Am I wrong to be confused when I hear "brothers" in church and wonder why I'm not allowed to do whatever it is we're singing about?

(Incidentally our parish is fairly high church, has liberal theology, uses inclusive language for the most part, and is very popular.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

No. That is not the assumption behind `he' and `his' in that sentence, the reason for the use of he/his is that the `male embraces the female'. I agree one might infer from it that lawyers are all male, but I would argue that is not what the writer was (necessarily) implying!

---

Not necessarily what the writing intended to imply, I agree - but we can't be sure (the writer might not have been aware of his or her own assumptions behind the statement).

However, the fact remains that, although we can read the text to ignore the ambiguity over intention, it would have been better had it been written in such a was as to avoid the ambiguity in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Goodric, I think that the key phrase in your posting was "older ladies".

With regards to attitudes to inclusive language, it seems to me that there are definite differences based upon age.

a) The vast majority of people aged 60+ will (regardless of their gender) still find it puzzling that anyone could get so worked up about "men" meaning "humanity". It is what they grew up with and they understand it. Many of such people appreciate that it does cause offence to other, younger, people and so don't mind inclusive language as long as it isn't taken to extremes

---

I AM an older lady
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 

quote:

---

The example of `batsman' is a key one in this, because that is one where, because of the tendency for women's sports to be less visible than men's, the claim to equality in using the same term as the men is much stronger than the claim not to be excluded and presumed to be male.

---

quote:

---

In the case of `us men and our salvation', no-one (except possibly HT)* has been arguing for the absolute retention of `men' but we (Josephine, Mousethief, Ian Climacus and I) have been arguing against the dropping of the word entirely because that just leaves us with a different problem (as I've already explained in this post and at least 2 previous ones). We have suggested a way of translating it which is more faithful to the original Greek of ημας τoυς ανθρoπoυς.

---

quote:

---

I dislike imposing our modern assumptions on those who have gone before.

---

I agree. I equally dislike justifying the modern use of discriminatory language by reference to outdates linguistic and social norms. In the MW article I linked to women were excluded from what, one assumes, was extemporary prayer. That, it seems to me, is only justifiable if - like Gordon Cheng - you really don't believe that men and women should share equal power.

Peronel.


*I know nothing about cricket, so may be wrong on this!

[ 07. June 2005, 10:07: Message edited by: Peronel ]
 

---

Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on :
 
Just to make a change from long posts (phew ) I'd like to say Oscar and Peronel - good points - well made and taken. And Nicodemia - how refreshing to hear such expressions from the "older generation" .

[ 07. June 2005, 10:07: Message edited by: Goodric ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And I hold to my point about the current teenage generation - the young women are not going to accept the use of "men" for themselves as they grow up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Saying `lawyers', `they' and `their' avoids the problem nicely. The trouble is that there are cases where the plural is clunky (though I think I'm happy with the use of the plural in a singular sense in those cases, but that can be ambiguous). However, I would tend towards a charitable reading of a sentence where `he', `his' has been used generically, i.e. the writer was not deliberately excluding me. That is probably part of my logic for not changing hymns where the author is dead. People have pointed out that for the older generation man, men is not a problem and so that is a reasonable previous generations too. If the author is alive then, I'm quite happy for them to change their own words. But, I dislike imposing our modern assumptions on those who have gone before.

---

quote:

---

What about calling a woman a batswoman even when she's asked to be called a batsman?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Gordon - do you read Hebrew? Gen. 1:26 uses the word 'adam, which we mistakenly often think means a male because it has become an English male name, but in fact means "human being" in Hebrew - if you want to say 'man' (i.e. male) in Hebrew you use 'ish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.

---

quote:

---

My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
From Gordon:

quote:

---

My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.

---

In these texts, you assume that 'adam is male. The text itself does not say that. Famously, Phyllis Trible argues that 'adam is androgynous and that at the creation of Eve (and only then) does gender diffeentiation enter the scene. This is a plausible interpretation of Gen 1 and 2, though cannot be proved beyond doubt - but then taking 'adam to mean male is in the same category.

---

quote:

---

Oh, sorry, and also during and after Eve's creation: Gen 2:20, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24 etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
Others will differ, but personally I have little problem with words like "batsman" or "postman".

---

quote:

---

My point is that one of the problems I have with "us men and our salvation" is that, as language has shifted, it is no longer accurate. The meaning of the translation has evolved away from the original text.

So I would absolutely advocate a return to more accurate wording. I agree that "us and our salvation" may not be the best translation (although personally I think it is much less open to misinterpretation than "us men...") for all the reasons you, Mousethief and others have given. Indeed, the example I gave in the bit you quoted was "for us men and women...". That may not be the best option, either - it's certainly somewhat clumsy.

But my point remains: if "us men and our salvation" really is meant to include men and women then what - other than the aesthetic - is the problem with updating the translation to reflect that.

---

Maybe there is no acceptable English form.

"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).

Not every language can do everything equally well. Maybe there is no way to translate the Creeds from Greek into English without misleading connotations or irritating amplifications. If that's true its a matter of which is worse, "us men" implying male sex, or "us" implying exclusiveness? The former seems worse to me. Sexism is a lot more prevalent than exclusiveness in our churches. They may of course be other churches that have the opposite problem.

If we had to use an obviously non-exclusive form then "for all people" is better contemporary English.
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Ken:
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Maybe there is no acceptable English form.
"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Maybe there is no acceptable English form.
"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).

---

What is wrong with saying "for us and our salvation" or even just "for our salvation"?

---

Read a post by me, Mousethief or Josephine for the answer to this one!

Carys
 

---

Posted by rebekah (# 2748) on :
 
An anecdote that may be helpful.
I believe that in the USA 99.5% +
of Primary (Elementary)school teachers are women. A company publishing text books for trainee Primary teachers decided to better target their readers by making all references to teachers as 'she' or 'her'.
The result? Howls of outrage from the male students about being ignored, made invisible, put down etc. I can empathise with this, becuase I feel anything from mildly irritated (here we go again!) to almost physically stabbed when language excludes me.

I think that a second problem about the "men embraces women" argument is that it is inconsistently applied. It seems that it is true only when someone wants it to be. ie it doesn't apply when the "men" referred to are in the Ordination service in the Prayer Book!

A third problem exposed by research, is that even when people KNOW in their heads that "men embraces" etc they don't know it in their hearts or spirits or wherever else we know things. An experiment in the US had mixed classes of Primary aged children carefully taught that "men embraces.."etc, and later were asked to draw a policeman. Even when a female police officer had visited the class the day before as part of the experiment, the boys and the girls drew male police officers. Language is very powerful stuff, it shapes our view of the world.

By the way Gordon, it's interesting that qahave to tell you that the word "headship" as an abstract noun doesn't appear anywhere in the NT, and that the only people told to rule their households are women (
 

---

Posted by rebekah (# 2748) on :
 
Sorry, the cat walked on the keyboard and sent my post before it was finished and tidied up!!!
My reference is to 1 Tim 5:14.
apologies from the cat.
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
[slight tangent] Am I the only speaker of other other languages who finds this 'problem' absolutely fascinating? I cannot imagine having this conversation about Czech. I'll now return to observing [/slight tangent.

Thanks,

K.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Its a matter of which is worse, "us men" implying male sex, or "us" implying exclusiveness? The former seems worse to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?

If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.

---

So those of us who have articulated that we find this language unhelpful are either making it up, or are looking for reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image? Uhhh, thanks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:


Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
No, I'm suggesting that you and others who "find this language unhelpful" choose to use it to reinforce a bad self image.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How blessed we all are that your suggestion is nonsense then. For a start its got nothing to do with my self-image, or that of any of the other men here who also object to it. It is because we do not wish to uise a form or words that misrepresents the gospel by implying the exclusion of those we intend to include...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Sine Nomina
This thread would make no sense at all without the underlying understanding by nearly all posters that women have been (and frequently still are) seen as inferior to men. One would think that alone would be enough to make the opponents of inclusive language change their minds. Apparently not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
So on one level you're right: of course noone in church is saying that women aren't saved.

---

quote:

---

is the attatchment to a now outdated and potentially misleading form of words sufficiently strong for them to be worth hanging onto, knowing that some will be offended? Is that form of words more important than knowing that they will impede some people's relationship with God?

---

quote:

---

Old Hundredth induced an infarction
Thanks to the downloadable liturgies in Common Worship, at St Valentine's we have our own specially-made service booklets. In the BCP Communion booklet, we have done precisely this, so it reads 'for us and for our salvation'. Tangentially, we have also replaced all references to the Holy Ghost with 'Holy Spirit'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Let's all agree that the Church oppressed women in former times. How does that mean that the Church currently intends to do so?

---

quote:

---

Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.

Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, this entire argument is almost completely hypothetical. Of all of us posting on this thread, how many of us actually go to a church that uses the egregious construct? Probably just me.

---

quote:

---

Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...

---

quote:

---

who in thy holy Word

---

???

Leetle M.
Dragging along with a 1662 prayer book

[ 07. June 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Leetle Masha, Marion Hatchett (Commentary on the American Prayer Book) says "in the holy Word" has replaced the reference to "thy holy Apostle" in the 1979 BCP because "The quotation is from 1 Timothy 2:1; since many scholars no longer consider this a Pauline epistle, the preamble is changed to eliminate a stumblingblock."

Wanderer, dear heart, the decreased use of the subjunctive is evidence that we live in a fallen world, and we must all do our little part to bring about God's kingdom on earth.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!

I knew you'd have the definitive answer.

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
First of all I do not believe that the construct "for us men and our salvation" was ever meant to "exclude" women on any level. And I think every single person posting here acknowledges that. This is not about what was originally meant by the text or by the Church or some Victorian forefather. It's about a current (mis)-interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!

I knew you'd have the definitive answer.

Leetle M.

---

Well, the definitive book, at least.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I?m reminded of a science text-book printed some years ago (but not that many years ago). Intended for school use, it included pictures of children ?doing science?, involved in various experiments. All of the children depicted were boys, except one ? and she was pictured blowing bubbles. The book wasn?t intended to offend females, the authors probably had no intention of denigrating women, if asked they would probably have said that they entirely agreed that women could be as capable of science as men. But in what they had produced they had revealed an attitude towards the roles of the sexes that showed science as ?boys? work?.

---

I just had an interesting experience. I was listening to the news on Radio 4 and there was a story about the parents of a murdered optician suing the police for failing to protect their son. I italicise it because it took me completely by surprise. I heard optician and expected it to have been a woman. I suspect this is because I have, in the course of my life been to three different opticians and they've all been female! It has nothing to do with the word, but with my experience. It doesn't mean that I don't think men can be opticians.

Carys
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues? In much the same way "Thy Holy Apostle" was changed to "Thy Holy Word" to remove a stumbling block, why not look at creative, scriptural ways to remove some of the stumbling blocks caused by exclusive language?

I'm particularly sorry Gordon has bowed out of the thread because he thinks its a dead horse, because I would really like an answer to how some of the specific language I proposed would lead to a misunderstanding of the various relationships we were discussing, in particular, how mentioning Sarah during the liturgy somehow violates Pauline ideas about headship or the concept of God as our Creator.

I had not thought that even the more conservative strands of Anglicanism would take exception to such an addition, and would really like to hear the theological reasoning behind it - because I honestly can't understand why it's problematic, and I do genuinely want to understand. I'm enough of a "good little Anglican" to think that the best way forward is to try to look for gender-inclusive language that already exists within our Scripture and tradition, and incorporate that. It's certainly there to be found, so why is it such a big "boo" idea to some people, to borrow a phrase?

And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?

---

quote:

---

Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...

---

quote:

---

...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.

Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.

---

quote:

---

HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues?

---

quote:

---

According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Help me work out how changing:

quote:

---

Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...

---

To

quote:

---

...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever

---

Will solve this problem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.

Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.

---

?

---

I never said it would. You stated that the church no longer intends to oppress women. I think there are still elements in the church that do oppress women, and since we're quite aware of how that happens, it can no longer be said to be unconscious. I cited the facts about female priests in the ECUSA getting crappier jobs as evidence.

As other people have already said here, language matters. Language affects how we see others and how we see ourselves. Inclusive language will not suddenly cause people to flock to our churches nor will it instantly make rector search committees less wary about interviewing women for good jobs--and no one has made such claims, despite how you've twisted what has previously been posted. But exclusive language says to many women that we don't count as much as men do, and that is never something that should be said in church. Exclusive language is part of a mindset that allows both men and women on search committees to just interview men because they've always had men and they're not sure the parish is "ready" for a female rector. It is important to be clear that women do matter as much as men do, because historically it has been quite clear that we didn't.
 

---

Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on :
 
RuthW
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
But Gordon, you still haven't explained exactly how gender-inclusive language threatens these relationships. For example, how does changing "The God of Abraham" to "The God of Abraham and Sarah" cause us to lose our concept of God as our creator, or of men and women as being created in God's image, or constitute an assault on Paul's theology of marriage? Is the idea that Sarah might be a important contributor to salvation history worthy of mention threatening in a way I'm failing to understand?

---

quote:

---

1Pet. 3:4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
1Pet. 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands,
1Pet. 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

---

quote:

---

And you still haven't answered my question of why, if there is no Scriptural or doctrinal reason not to be inclusive with particular language, we shouldn't do so when it is causing people to struggle and stumble. If it costs us nothing in terms of sacrificing truth, but only something in terms of personal comfort level, give me a reason not to do it that outweighs helping people who find the language a stumbling block, even after it has been "properly explained."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...

---

quote:

---

If someone were to spit in your face, would you choose not to be insulted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.

---

Presumably by the same token, people who are black, disabled, Irish, Jewish, Gypsies or wahtever "choose" to be offended by terms used about them. It's their choice and the rest of society should use what language it likes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.

---

Are you saying that trying to use language that doesn't imply an exclusion of one group from salvation is "editing the gospel"? That's the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time.

---

EDIT, tr.v. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Gordon, thank you very much for your reply - I'm glad that reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated. Your post has given me some insight into a particular point of view that I hope will be helpful as our parish works its way through this. (although I'm still baffled by one gentleman's assertion that Sarah isn't "Biblical")

I'm a wary of the "lack of disendorsement" argument, because there are several things Christ never "disendorsed" that we now agree (I hope) are wrong - slavery being the most obvious. We are in complete agreement that we need a word other than "disendorse."

At any rate, I've got an 11th grade paper on Hemingway to proofread (speaking of patriarchy ) - I'll try to return to this later this evening.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Sorry for the double post...Gort said:

quote:

---

Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...

---

I'm sorry that you feel that way because I see you as a fine example of exactly the point I've been trying to make. You chose not to accept the gender-biased attitude of that church in defining your self-image.

---

quote:

---

My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."

---

Sounds to me like you take offense at it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!

---

I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies!
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
...But there's a fundamental difference between "the rest of society" and freedom of speech on the one hand and a Christian church that is trying to conduct itself and its services in accordance with the Gospel on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.

---

I have no idea what the idiom in Greek is.

But it is certainly the case that in English "for us men and for our salvation" implies (though perhaps very strongly) the existence of other men somewhere who are not offered that salvation, almost as much as "for us" leaving the "men" out does. So the business about "men" being less exclusive od people not presnet is a bit of a red herring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!

---

I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Re: huios. I was under the impression that this meant "offspring"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?

---

Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?

---

Not us. And no move to either - Jesus is male so there is no ambiguity in English, so no-one worries about it. Even though it is still arguably a mistranslation, as the origianal Greek word is derived from anthropos (IIRC) (Do some English versions say "and was made flesh"?)"

---

quote:

---

I'm sure some people do worry about it - I was just remarking that it hasn't been worried about in our church yet.

---

We worried about it in General Synod, where the internationally agreed translation ('and became truly human') was rejected as being "too transatlantic" in the words of a bishop I know - the Cof E retained 'and was made man' - which said bishop acknowledged was a poor translation, but better that than something that sounded, well, American.

[With the sound of cavalry trumpets, our hero rides into the battle...]

I proposed that we use 'truly human' and was defeated in the vote - and then wrote to the Revision Committee to tell them their anti-American comments were racist.

Some of my best friends are American, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one....
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I never said it would. You stated that the church no longer intends to oppress women. I think there are still elements in the church that do oppress women,

---

quote:

---

and since we're quite aware of how that happens,

---

quote:

---

it can no longer be said to be unconscious. I cited the facts about female priests in the ECUSA getting crappier jobs as evidence.

---

quote:

---

twisted what has previously been posted.

---

quote:

---

Qlib asks
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?

---

quote:

---

However, I object to changing Slow to chide and swift to bless in Love Divine to Slow to blame and swift to bless because blame does not mean the same as chide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I'm hearing 2 claims ("traditional language is sexist" and "women have been/ are discriminated against in church based on their gender"). I'm trying to work out a link between these two claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Sexist language is one of the things that reinforces sexist ideology, and sexist ideology promotes discrimination against women.

---

In that case, HT—who uses traditional language for demonstrably non-sexist reasons, unlike yours truly—should feel under no compulsion whatsoever to change.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Having non-sexist reasons to use sexist language doesn't make the language any less sexist or any less objectionable.
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Also, HT may have non-sexist reasons, but unless he stands up every service and explains them, odds are some in the audience will be misinterpreting it.

ANd, as I've said repeatedly, this isn't to me primarily about political correctness. It's about comprehensibility. Language has moved on, so words which meant one thing now mean another. That it seems to me is a problem, because it risks distorting the gospel.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
So not only I, but he should be compelled to change? Is this really what you're saying, RuthW?
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
What do you mean by compelled? If you mean that the prayer book should be dragged forcibly from his spasming, protesting fingers, then absolutely not. Ultimately, the responsibility for the language he uses and whether it helps or hinders his congregation rests with him.

However it seems to me that part of communicating effectively is taking account of how you will be heard, and part of ministering well is being receptive to the needs of the community you serve. If outdated language is impeding the reception of the gospel because the words convey an unintended message of exclusion then, it seems to me, that is a problem.
 

---

Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Gah.... spare a prayer for the poor ol' Western Rite Orthodoxen, who want to sing the Tantum Ergo but break their teeth on the line "Procedenti ab utroque!" [Who, from Both, with Both is One]

Leetle M.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I never said anything about compelling anyone to change. I'm not that powerful, and neither am I that unreasonable. Perhaps you would care to tell me where you got the idea that I would or could compell anyone to do anything?

HT's congregation is apparently full of people who are perfectly happy with the old prayerbook service. HT's rector is, one hopes, someone who does her/his job well, and as the decision about what language to use in a church service is in the ECUSA the rector's decision, it seems to me we can safely leave that decision to her/him.

Whether or not a particular liturgy uses inclusive language is hardly the only factor in any rector's decisions in these matters. Changing the liturgy people are familiar with can be a very messy business, and one size does not fit all. The rector at my parish would dearly love to have us use the contemporary version of the Lord's Prayer, but opposition to this potential change was so vehement and so fierce that he decided to let it go for the time being.

That said, I will continue to maintain that the traditional prayerbook language is sexist and that using sexist language in church is not a good thing.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
OK, thanks for the clarifications, RuthW and Peronel. I am happy with "each man, er, person, did what was right in their own eyes"
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am happy ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
No—I wouldn't

---

quote:

---

By the way, women aren't demanding 'tolerance', they are asking for vocal recognition that they, too, are children of God and made in in the image of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression... invisibility is a tool of the oppression. The fact that nice people don't mean to be oppressive is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't want to go to a church that made me feel that way every week, not because people were forgetting to be inclusive but because it was written into the service.

---

Thank you, Pob

No-one wants for force anyone to change. But it would be so much better if the mindset of (most) men were such that (a) in the first place things had been written inclusively, and (b) that those today who look at liturgy, hymns, and those who get up in the pulpits and speak (especially in non-liturgical churches) would not have to be reminded that 50% of the world is female, and be nudged to adjust their language.

I don't know the proportion of women priests/pastors to men across the denominations, but most women in church are looking at a man in front of them, whether at the altar, pulpit, or striding across a stage. It would be so pleasant and enabling to know they recognised us as their sisters in Christ, equal in God's eyes, and this to them came naturally.

It got to the point in one church where if the preacher said once more "Brothers, I say to you...." I was going to get up and wave a banner that said "AND SISTERS!"
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Gordon, I find great irony in the fact that the subtitle of your new book is "How Words Change Lives."
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Gordon, I find great irony in the fact that the subtitle of your new book is "How Words Change Lives."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But I suppose you would be suggesting that words can be used as a tool of oppression, and are in the case of words used to uphold patriarchy. All I can say (apart from the arguments I've been putting above) is that the experience of the women I know best suggests to me that the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable. I suppose my wife could be concealing the truth of her experience from me for reasons of her own, but she does tend to be quite outspoken if she senses I am not giving her a fair hearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.


Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All I can say (apart from the arguments I've been putting above) is that the experience of the women I know best suggests to me that the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable. I suppose my wife could be concealing the truth of her experience from me for reasons of her own, but she does tend to be quite outspoken if she senses I am not giving her a fair hearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.


Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

---

Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

Imagine if I were to say, "I don't like sprouts". Your response? "My wife likes sprouts". So? If you were to serve sprout souffle up at a church dinner I - and a whole bunch of others, because a dislike of sprouts is pretty common - would go hungry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A couple of weekends ago my wife went to the Darling Harbour Convention Centre (Sydney CBD) for a conference of 3000 women, organised by female leaders within Sydney diocese, with women speakers addressing sessions of between 1000 and 3000 women.

---

quote:

---

The church I attend makes no concessions to inclusive language. There are 80 women in the main Wednesday women's Bible study, and all up a couple of hundred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.

And, yes, as someone else said, there is a downside for men to the fact that "'man' embraces woman" but the downside for women is much greater. Because invisibility is a tool of the oppression. The fact that nice people don't mean to be oppressive is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My basic argument for retaining traditional language is quite different, and doesn't relate to the inclusion/exclusion idea. Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm getting somewhat frustrated here. I - and others - have said that we do find this language excluding. That we do find it misleading. That it does impede our worship and our relationship with God...

.. Rather, we're arguing that some do feel excluded and that - as language moves on - these words are becoming more archaic, more misleading, and potentially more offensive.

---

When you say, speaking for yourself, that you do feel offended/excluded, then the right response seems IMVHO to be something along the lines of:
- we're sorry to hear that
- no offence/exclusion was intended
- insofar as it is compatible with the equally-valid views and concerns of other members of the congregation, we'll change the words to ones which convey to you and to everyone women's equal status in the Christian community.

But if you should go beyond the personal to the political, to say that women are right to feel offended/excluded, that by implication Gordon Cheng's wife, being a woman, should feel as you do, then you can hardly complain if he replies to the opposite effect, that perhaps you should feel as his wife does.

Mrs Cheng has exactly as much right to speak for women as you have - no more and no less.

Let none of us count you as one whit less than a person. But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? )) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.

Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?

RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.

But then, as I read it, spoiled it in the last line by suggesting that traditional language is objectively oppressive...

Best wishes,

Russ
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?

---

What does this have to do with the rest of your post? It seems like a cheap shot at feminism to me and I sincerely hope that it wasn't Chesterton who said/wrote it.
 

---

Posted by Qlib (# 43) on :
 
Sounds just like Chesterton at his worst, I have to say.

Russ - this isn't about telling people what they should or should not feel. It's about analysing what is being said and, perhaps, moving on to understand why that makes some people feel excluded. What they do about those feelings and how they respond to them is for them to decide. For example, black people have reclaimed the word 'black' - and encouraged white people to use it where appropriate; some of them are (may be?) in the process of reclaiming the word 'N***er' - but for a white person to use this term (in most contexts) would still be abusive.

For another example: John Agard has written a brilliant poem called Half-Caste in which he says why he thinks it's the wrong word to use about someone of mixed race. He expresses his hurt. Fact is it's a racist term, and remains so regardless of the intentions of the person who uses it and whether or not their cousin/ sister/ brother/ uncle or aunt happens to be of mixed race and is/is not offended by it.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.


Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

---

Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Do those women speakers also address sessions of thousands of men?

---

quote:

---

Why is there are women's bible study?

---

quote:

---

Are women not allowed to go to mixed bible studies? Do the women have a different Bible or a different Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

But if you should go beyond the personal to the political, to say that women are right to feel offended/excluded, that by implication Gordon Cheng's wife, being a woman, should feel as you do, then you can hardly complain if he replies to the opposite effect, that perhaps you should feel as his wife does.

Mrs Cheng has exactly as much right to speak for women as you have - no more and no less.

Let none of us count you as one whit less than a person. But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? )) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.

---

quote:

---

Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?

---

quote:

---

RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Do those women speakers also address sessions of thousands of men?

---

No.

quote:

---

Why is there are women's bible study?

---

I'm not sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
as I pointed out above in a comment Gordon has not referred to, using the accurate biblical language no longer conveys the underlying biblical truth, because the word "son" no longer carries with it all the meaning of the society of Paul's time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
"son" doesn't say that today, and those listening to it will not understand its significance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xSx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My basic argument for retaining traditional language is quite different, and doesn't relate to the inclusion/exclusion idea. Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.

---

Without wishing to be rude, could you please clarify which stream of conservative biblical theology you think this language is reflecting?

A number of people here have said it makes them feel like second-class citizens who can't play a full role in the life of the church. Are you saying that this is a reflection of what your theology teaches?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? ) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.

---

quote:

---

Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?

---

quote:

---

RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.

But then, as I read it, spoiled it in the last line by suggesting that traditional language is objectively oppressive...

---

Please quote me accurately. I said that traditional language is sexist. Sexism is frequently but not automatically oppressive.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Ruth and Peronel, I would like to say thank you for keeping on fighting your corners. The corner is mine too, but I do not have the ability and knowledge to argue as you two do.

Please keep at it - I am cheering you on from the sidelines!
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Seconding Nicodemia's for Peronel and Ruth.

It's obvious that "heirs" rather than "sons" more accurately conveys the sense of "inheritance" to the 21st century listener/reader in the pew. So is Gordon's preference for "traditional language [that] reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology" more compelling than a clearer transmission of the meaning of the original text? Because the ONLY reason I can see to prefer "son" to "heir" in this instance is to preserve the implication of gender, and doing so comes at the cost of losing the original meaning. However, fairly specific gender roles are a part of this theology, and therefore the preservation of gender is an important consideration.

Now, Gordon and like-minded others, specifically including like-minded women, are of course perfectly free to do this, and I don't advocate forcing any language down anyone's throat. But one of the most common criticisms levelled at the inclusive language proponents is that we're sacrificing scripture on the altar of a particular brand of theology - but how is this any different?
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.


Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').

---

Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I said that traditional language is sexist. Sexism is frequently but not automatically oppressive.

---

quote:

---

But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
There are plenty of women in Gordon Cheng's church and in lots of other churches who want a more traditional theology and the traditional language in which that theology is expressed.

---

Then there are women like me, who want a theology so conservative that it makes Gordon's look positively radical in comparison, but who want the traditional theology expressed with absolute faithfulness and accuracy.

Which means that the whole question of whether or not to use inclusive language is, for me, the wrong question. The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"

If it doesn't, we have a problem. And saying that our audience should understand what we mean doesn't fix the problem. It's my responsibility to say clearly what I mean. If what I've said doesn't communicate what I mean, I need to say it differently.

And it's clear that "for us men and for our salvation" doesn't communicate what we mean. It may have been an accurate translation at one time, but English has changed, and we need to change our translation. Having communicated accurately in the past isn't good enough. We need to communicate our faith accurately now. If someone rejects our faith, we want them to reject what it really is, based on a genuine understanding of what we believe. It's not fair to set people up so that they reject something that we really don't believe.

So we need to change this. Of course, given the way we do things in the Orthodox Church, it's not going to change overnight. I suspect we'll have to get the whole mess with overlapping ethnic jurisdictions ironed out before we can realistically address the need for a new, accurate translation.

But we should clearly acknowledge that it needs to be done, not only for the sake of the feelings of people who are offended by the existing English translations, but for the sake of the Truth.
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Josephine
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Indeed! Although I'd say that the answer to this--

quote:

---

The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.

---

As a matter of theology and history, that's absolutely true. But a person reading it today will not gain that understanding, because "son" no longer conveys "all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright" it did when the passage was written. Even at the time of the Authorized Version, sonship didn't absolutely convey that meaning, since daughters (if without brothers) had specific inheritance rights that might be equivalent to those of sons.

This is a case where no modern word, or even any convenient phrase, comes anywhere close to conveying the full meaning of the Greek.

John

---

quote:

---

Eph. 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph. 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph. 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men?

---

It's not in my Bible. I wasn't even aware that we would have gender in heaven. We certainly won't marry or be given in marriage. Depending on how you look at it, we will all be the bride of Christ (Rev21); at one and the same time we will have attained to mature manhood in Christ (Eph 4). So we won't be having this discussion in heaven, you'll be pleased to know.
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
No, not in the Bible. In one of the gospels that didn't quite make it, I think.

NOT argueing that that is authoritative of course. Just using it as an analogy. Possibly a bad one - it's been a long day and it's past midnight.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it's possible to be young and female, hear the explanation and actually be quite delighted at the idea of being called a "son of God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men? One of the non-official gospels, I think.*

---

quote:

---

Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it.

---

quote:

---

Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
The problem isn't that it's impossible to understand. It certainly isn't. But redefining words creates barriers to communication. <snip> We could communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.

And I would submit that using the word "son" to refer to women makes it harder to communicate critical information about their salvation to people who need that information. We can communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:

By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.

---

quote:

---

Josephine, you and others have put the argument that clarity of communication is a key issue, and I share that concern—but it is not my only concern.
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
I don't understand your equating of "clarity" and "lack of giving offense" - they aren't at all the same thing. "Clarity" means easily understood by the audience, whereas "lack of offense" means palatable to the audience.

---

quote:

---

Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?

---

quote:

---

But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language? I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking how you would convey this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:

quote:

---

Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?

---

Utterly unrelated actually, as Sienna cogently demonstrated.

---

quote:

---

Some scholars might say that the only way to convey this would be to twist the clear intention of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:

I really think St. Paul's comments about eating meat from pagan sacrifices are instructive here. If language is causing pain, distance and is a stumbling block to others, why should we not change it when the original meaning can be preserved and in some cases, restored?

---

Interesting! I'm writing a sermon on this very passage right now—typing with my left hand while I type to you with my right!

quote:

---

You and others have gone to great lengths to explain that this feeling isn't valid, because much of the language they object to does, in fact, include and incorporate women.

---

quote:

---

I don't think there is a way to express that particular belief in a way that won't offend some people.

---

quote:

---

People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:

You still haven't answered my question regarding why, when "men" means "men and women," "humanity" isn't a valid substitute.

---

quote:

---

Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?

---

quote:

---

But I think we're supposed to try, and I think we're supposed to be generous with one another over non-essentials. I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
Gordon said:

quote:

---

Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.

---

But why should the befuddlement exist at all? Why should one have to wait until attending a Bible class in one's late teens to have the befuddlement addressed? Why not use a word that conveys the original concept clearly and avoid the confusion altogether? It's looking to me like it's a choice between clarity and better sense of original meaning versus retaining outmoded usage.

By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.

---

quote:

---

I said:

quote:

---

I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.

---

You replied:
I like the idea of generosity! But I am uncomfortable with the idea of any matter addressed by God being classed by us as "nonessential".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.

---

Another great huge gulf between us: I don't see God as having been that directive about the language used in the Bible. I think people used the language they knew.

---

quote:

---

The problem with going over to phrases like 'heirs of God' or 'child of God' is that part of the reason we are sons of God is that we are one body with the Son of God. It is through Him that we devive our inheritance and so to change the language actually then begins to confuse our understanding of the whole basis for our standing. We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.

---

quote:

---

2. Why should we run the risk of translating scripture at all?

---

quote:

---

Er no. People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.

---

Gordon, I don't want some man patronising me and explaining what the text really means. I want to read it and feel I belong to this group, that the Gospel is for ME. in my own right, not as a second clas person.

Sorry, I know Gordon posted this ages ago, but you Australians and Americans post so much before we in the UK get up!!!

Now I'll get breakfast and come back to the rest of the thread afterwards!

Oh, and to Peronel
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Some people here seem to think that inclusive language is a (post)modern issue raised first a few decades ago by feminism. Well, not so. As usual in matters of religion, before the "enlightenment" took hold things were in better shape:

quote:

---

From "Inclusive Language in the Liturgy: Historical Perspectives":
It is clear that gender-balanced language has been used in Latin and vernacular liturgical prayers since the fifth century, though it was used less frequently than generic masculine language. One unanswerable question is why our ancestors in the faith sometimes used one construction instead of the other. A question to which at least a partial answer can be given is why inclusive language seems to have been used less frequently as the centuries passed. It is clear that there was a substantial decrease in the use of gender-balanced language during the Tridentine period (1570-1970) compared to the medieval era. One reason is that the vernacular general intercessions were deleted from the liturgy at that time, and they were a significant occasion for the use of inclusive language. A second reason is that liturgical texts from Italy were used as models for the Tridentine liturgical books, and these had never used as much inclusive language as those from farther north.

---

As usual my conclusion is: bring back the dark ages...
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.

---

quote:

---

any concern about the sensitivity of those who feel oppressed by such language is superfluous since it's just women whining about their God-given place in life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:

First, I don't agree with you that the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original texts translated as the inclusive "men" carry the ever-present concept of subordination of women to men (big surprise),

---

quote:

---

Under this view, then, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" would mean "Christ came to save all men and all women (who, we must remember, are subordinate but equal to men)" whereas the phrase "Christ came to save all humanity" would mean only "Christ came to save all men and women," thus leaving out important information.

---

quote:

---

Under this interpretation, gender subordination (not gender difference - an important distinction) becomes of such overwhelming importance that it must be ever-present, in every discussion about human relations with God.

---

quote:

---

The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.

---

quote:

---

Where did God say that "men (including women)" or "mankind" is the term that must be used when referring to humanity?

---

quote:

---

"gender subordination becomes of importance, in a way that it is often present in discussions about human relations with God, and ought never to be excluded"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I don't think you and I are living on the same planet GC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language?

---

quote:

---

"Look, I will guide her..”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sienna said:

quote:

---

The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.

---

Yes, me too. Most of my conversations don't consciously do this.

---

Well, of course. Let non-inclusive language do it on its own. Making sure that non-inclusive forms are used at every opportunity can allow the subordination of women to be continuously pointed out without the tedious necessity of doing it consciously.
 

---

Posted by Peronel (# 569) on :
 
Qlib, I hate it when people say what I tried to, but clearer

And yeah on Jesus/Tony Blair. Actually there's a resemblance in some of the cheesier christian art, too. Neither of them ever stop smiling.

Peronel.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:


Your position: women ARE subordinate in authority to men. That IS part of the gospel. Updating language to "men and women" or "people" when the Bible uses "men" is thus distorting God's revealed truth about the relative roles of the sexes.

That's slightly exagerated, but is it roughly in the right ball-park?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. 'son / child' of God language - we discussed this at length a few pages back and I seem to recall we decided I was right. (I might have misremembered that, but I'm sure did).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".

---

Are you sure you haven't bought into the concept of an infallible English translation because of your liking for the theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?

---

Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.

---

quote:

---

Things written today should reflect today's idiom and the fact that man/men have lost most of their generic sense means that we should avoid them. I remain to be convince that we have to meddle with the words of older hymns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
I... think that it's perfectly OK to change the analogy for sermons and hymns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pob:

So when the missionaries came to translate the words of Jesus, 'I am the bread of life,' this gave them a huge problem. Did they translate faithfully, thus communicating to the Amazonians that Jesus is spiritually indigestible, or change the text to create an analogy that they would understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or should we perhaps allow that it's possible to understand and empathise with the experience of those who are unlike us, and allow that even Amazonians are capable of doing this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pob:

Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
. Language works on more than just the literal level. One of your problems on this thread is that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that.

---

quote:

---

But actually, I don’t think you do really have a problem with understanding – you are just very disingenuous. Your favourite tactic against liberals is to turn find ways of accusing them of being illiberal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:

I think you are, quite deliberately, confusing two things. Some phrases and expressions in the Bible will, inevitably, require specialist knowledge to make them explicable – ‘unleavened bread’ being a minor example of this. But other parts simply need translating into the correct idiom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.

---

quote:

---

1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sienna:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?

---

Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author

---

quote:

---

the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:

So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.

---

Hmm... Peronel, we seem to have large areas of overlap in our understanding about the function of language. I certainly don't believe that you shouldn't be offended by my views, no matter how much I explain them. Indeed, assuming that you assume what you've said you assume, the more I explain what I think, the more offended you'll get!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


However I have a question for you about the paragraph I snipped here—is it your view, based on what you said, that women can't understand men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


Consequently, when Paul says

quote:

---

1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.

---

do you think "Paul you are lying like a rug, you don't understand and you never could"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I was attempting to base my argument on the Greek and Hebrew, at least in my own mind, even though I'm posting in English. I'm not an expert but I'm trying to reflect what I do know of the original languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
and in the process given yourself a few other translation headaches as well, eg next time I read "huios" in Greek am I going to translate it as "son" or "child"? Why or why not? You get the picture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Individual women may or not feel marginalized or oppressed; they may or may not actually be marginalized or oppressed. What we are addressing is a structural issue, an ideology, which tends to promote the marginalization of women. This is not to say that throughout the centuries of male supremacy there were never any happy women, and likewise this is not to say that there are no happy, faithful women today whose faith is nurtured by the use of traditional language in their public and private devotions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable? I don't get that. Why not a simple: "I'm sorry—normally when we feed people bread they don't throw up" followed by business as usual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.

---

quote:

---

when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.

---

quote:

---

I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.

---

quote:

---

I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that ? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pob:

Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?

---

No, this is quite right and I'm sorry for my sarcasm. But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant. Which helped them understand the Bible without needing the analogy translated for them—Israelites eating Arnott's SAOs and so on and so forth...

---

quote:

---

Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.

---

quote:

---

You're arguing with Gordon Cheng over whether his approval of male-gender-language is ideological. I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.

---

quote:

---

I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.

---

quote:

---

I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
For instance, I am not a "son" of God according to any of the normal meanings of the word. Biologically and legally I know whose son I am. But "Son of God" is a metaphor that is useful as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor. In the same way, stating I am an "heir" of God is only helpful up to a point. The normal meaning of the word is "one who inherits after the death of a parent". Given that God is not likely to die any time soon this particular line of imagery does not mean a lot to me personally. If you find it helpful, great - but you still need to acknowledge it is an image rather than a direct description.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:


The problem is not with the Greek original, nor even with the 16th century translation when it was made: the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To use "Son" is radically counter-sexist.

---

Only with radically twisted logic.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
What was wrong with my logic?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Greyface:

quote:

---

Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?

---

A thought assails.

If the word 'sons' is supposed to indicate 'child who will inherit' as opposed to daughters, who couldn't then the word takes on a feminist meaning. If women in antiquity couldn't inherit then being designated God's sons indiscriminately of gender says something about God. To wit that he is not concerned with the barriers that the secular world puts up. In the Kingdom of God, Jews can join posh golf clubs and no-one cares about black and white people using the same drinking fountains.

---