|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gender-Neutral Language and the Oppression of Women
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
(Not sure if this is a Dead Horse, but I trust it'll be moved if it is.)
Like many, I take exception to the trend by which masculine references to God are changed to gender-neutral references. Examples: "Our Father, who art in heaven" becomes "Gracious God, who art in Heaven" and "It is right to give him thanks and praise" becomes "It is right to give God thanks and praise."
Some of these seem innocuous, but others are annoying and some are downright grating, e.g. "Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost" becomes "Praise triune God, whom we adore."
I raised this issue recently with a certain clergyman, who responded: "The inclusive language is a justice issue and with 75% of our church being women who spent most of their lives being put down by the male world, many have expressed genuine support in the new language."
I don't deny that women have historically been oppressed. But I fail to see how stripping the Deity of father imagery addresses this. Even the most liberated woman has, or has had, father figures in her life. Why can't the Deity be just another one?
My thesis: The application of gender-neutrality to God through prayers and hymns does little or nothing to address the put-down of women by the male world. Discuss.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think the impact of gender-inclusive language for God will vary according to the person and specifically their background.
There really are people who are taught to believe that God is male. Gender-specific pronouns for God obviously reinforce that. There are both theological and psychological implications of that belief-- "theology matters" as they say. Other women have been hurt by male figures and may find the image (because that's what it is-- a metaphor) of God as Father harmful or distancing. For these people, gender specific language is harmful, causes distress and distances the person from God.
For other people (such as yourself)-- none of those are a problem. There the awkward sentence construction necessary to avoid using pronouns for God, or the glaring changes to traditional language, override any benefit. It may disrupt the flow of worship and distract from the real intent of the liturgy. It may entail thinking of God as "it" rather than person, thus, again, causing one to feel distant from God.
My own personal practice, fwiw, is to use gender inclusive language in formal written communication-- particularly liturgy or academic writing. When engaging in formal writing you have the time and ability to work at your sentence construction, so that generally you are able to say what you want to say w/o it sounding like some awkward political statement or some oblique message to a disembodied nonperson. Generally, with sufficient time and effort, you can make the translation seamless enough to be unremarkable.
In informal written communication (e.g. on the Ship) and in most oral communication (including preaching) I use gender-specific language as the Least Bad Option. About the only time I would use gender-inclusive language for God in preaching or teaching would be if that was the subject of the talk, otherwise it just draws too much attention to itself and is distracting.
But bottom line: ymmv.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
As cliffdweller intimates, some people (not necessarily all female) have been appallingly damaged by their fathers and, therefore, that word can be terribly loaded.
I do wonder, particularly since I've had cause lately to do a lot of self-examination over certain issues, when I hear opinions like this (and the same goes for similar expressions concerning race and gender/sexual identity) whether the person expressing them has ever taken the time to meditate themselves into a state where they can empathize with *The Other* or whether they are just knee-jerkingly pissed off about a perceived threat to their societally-privileged position (be it white, male, straight or whatever)*
*not having a go at you, personally, Miss Amanda
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
If it isn't actually a Dead Horse, this topic resembles one of those slightly shoddy merry-go-rounds: Everyone will climb on their horses and go round and round. Because, as cliffdweller put it:
quote:
I think the impact of gender-inclusive language for God will vary according to the person and specifically their background.
In my experience, inclusive language was a breath of fresh air in an airless church. My irritation with exclusively male pronouns for God was directly proportional to that which might be experienced by a traditionalist sitting through a service in which every reference to God was feminine.
As to the appeal in the OP regarding father figures, I will say: God made a lot more sense to me when I was shown the richness of other Scriptural images of God. My relationship with my father was not particularly fraught, but neither was it particularly close. The world opened up for me with those other, equally Scripturally faithful, images. I cannot imagine returning to just one: that would be like painting with one colour.
I do not know how the thesis of the OP can be measured, since the discussion will likely boil down to individual experiences and personal piety. If you would like to measure the relationship between introduction of inclusive language and the enrollment of women in seminaries of those denominations, that would seem to indicate that the opposite of the thesis is true. But is that correlation or causation?
Sigh. Measures will vary, the same horses will go round and round.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
Agree, too, with Leaf - laboured *inclusive* or overly-feminized language is just as irritating and unhelpful. Perhaps we just need better liturgists.
[ 05. June 2012, 00:23: Message edited by: Jahlove ]
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Some of the neutral language efforts are painfully contrived, but I have too many friends who believe the "Father" language and the common referring to God with male pronoun proves that God is male, which too easily becomes males should dominate females (because males are more like God).
The main issue is not that some have/had bad experiences with fathers -- some likewise with mothers! The issue is are we portraying a distorted concept of who God is? Words matter.
I lived thru an era when women were told they could not be a "mailman," "policeman," "fireman"; a discussion-ending explanation was "the word is man, not woman." Obviously women can not be men, "obviously" a woman cannot hold a job the name of which is male. You could argue all you want that "man" is a gender neutral word, but that just got a woman laughed at. "A man is a man and a woman is not a man." That's why the titles of those jobs were changed, to proclaim that the job is not limited to males. As society becomes used to women in all these roles, the word name becomes less important and could eventually revert of "mailman" instead of "mail carrier." But while there are still some arguing that women "can't" any *wording* that suggests women "can't" is important to change because the issue is not the word but the limitation intended - or heard - as conveyed.
Same with any wording suggesting God is more male than female, more Father figure than Mother figure. With so many churches teaching that what matters about Jesus is his maleness, rather than his humanity regardless of gender, (therefore no women clergy, etc), I think it's important to avoid any language that creates the appearance of stating that God is primarily (or wholly) male, but instead proclaim via word choices that God is just as much female as male (take your choice whether than means God is both male and female or neither).
Really too bad English grammar doesn't have a gender-neutral personal pronoun, it would be a big help in communicating a gender-neutral or both-genders God person. I think it would make more clear who is saying God is (primarily) male and who is disagreeing with that. (I have no objection to references to "Fatherhood of God" so long as there are also references to God as feminine.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
In my own role as a lay minister, I consciously try use gender-neutral or gender parallel ("women and men," "he or she," etc.) phraseology when talking about people. When I'm talking about God it gets trickier because people are so emotionally wedded to the male-default language of Scripture, so I tend to leave that alone in the Prayers of the Church; although I try to avoid using a lot of male pronouns referencing God in my sermons if I can do it in a way that doesn't sound forced.
I agree that some of the gender-neutralized language of newer liturgies and hymns can be awfully precious and/or awkward; on the other hand, I find excessive male pronouns used unnecessarily to be grating -- in fact, when we were revising our congregational extra-hymnal songbook, I contacted the editors and expressed my discomfort with a song like "Sons of God" or the lines in "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love" about "And we'll guard each man's dignity and save each man's pride"; I didn't have a lot of advice for inclusifying the former song, but I did suggest changing "man" to "one" in the latter song, and they in fact followed my suggestion.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Over doing gender inclusive language makes worship hard. Especially if you have a congegation like the 1 I am part of, aging not a lot of youth and thus used to say . i.e "man" meaning all mankind, or refering to "God" as Father. Now I realize and empathize with those people who's experience of life with father has made that title onerous . However when that title is linked to God we need to remember God is not male/female but all in all.
Now I do opposse men saying that God is male thus church leadership needs to all male, BALONEY IMHO. And that cuts the otherway as well where gender neutrality renders things like Scripture & the Creeds just that much more difficult to comprehend or to teach .
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I once was at a meeting where some woman was going on and on about how God isn't male, and that male references to God, particularly as Father, were very unhelpful. She appealed to situations where women had been hurt by men, particularly their fathers, saying that these women could not relate well to God as a father because they had experienced such pain. She sounded very angry, and her tone of voice and her body language was aggressive.
She eventually finished her rant and sat down. Another woman got up to speak. She was very quiet; we all had to strain to hear her.
"I was abused by my father when I was a child. I find it very helpful to think of God as Father, because I know he is good and will never hurt me. He is the best Father I could ever have."
No one else had anything to say about it after that.
Still, I realize that not everyone feels the same way this lady does, and I don't want to upset anyone if I can avoid it.
I feel like there are people who get upset on someone else's behalf, however, and it always seems as though they are simply trying to stir something up just for the sake of stirring. It is as though it is their personal crusade to be offended for someone else. And while I do understand and support the idea of speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, I also wonder if we take it too far sometimes -- could we be spending too much energy on something that matters less, to the detriment of something that matters more?
I wonder why we have to have so much venom in our discussions about inclusive language. I wonder why we have to have so much anger. I wonder why we cannot listen to each other and try to see another person's point of view before writing them off as either "evil libruls" or "&%$* fundies".
There are times when gender inclusive and gender neutral language works. There are times when it is needed. But there are times when I think we take it too far. I've read things which referred to Jesus during his time on earth in gender neutral language, and it upset me. While he was in human form, he was male. I don't know why, I don't care why, and I'm not going to draw foolish conclusions from that fact. It is what it is, and I don't feel right messing with it.
I question the wisdom of redacting old hymns to the point of contortion just for the sake of inclusive language. One would think that if it's simple then it would be fine, and if it's complicated then we simply would avoid singing it. There are likely as many people who are offended by the changes as there are people who are offended by the original. Should one side or the other be disregarded? Of course not. God is God of all, not just those who think like we do.
I guess what I'm rambling around to get at is this: No one size fits all. God loves all, even those with whom we disagree. And surely we can find a way to dialogue about things we find important in a way that doesn't shortchange or demean those who think differently that we do, and in a way that doesn't allow anger to overcome our words and actions.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
The above is not at all pointed at anyone who has posted on this thread. I see no anger here, and it's refreshing. I'm thinking of several heated arguments I've been forced to sit through at various events.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Just to reverse the process, my sister and I always refer to our father as, well, Our Father. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
I'm a member, albeit a long-inactive one, of Jubilate hymns, and have had a few of my hymns published in their books (e.g. 'Sing Glory' 94 & 481, if anyone's interested). I avoided gendered language in my later hymns, including those two except for a 'Lord' in 94, when referring to God the Father or the Holy Spirit, or to humanity in general, and later revised some of my earlier ones to gender-neutralise them. Jubilate have a policy of using gender-neutral language in modern hymns published under their auspices, and quite right too, say I. Some examples of gender-neutrality can be painfully clunky ("Parent, Child, and Holy Spirit" - I made that one up, but I've seen some almost as bad), but that it's sometimes done badly is no reason for not doing it at all.
Gender-neutralising old hymns by the likes of Wesley and Watts is another matter. Jubilate do update the language of old hymns in their books, getting rid of 'thee's and 'thou's and other obscure archaisms, and again, I think they are right to do so. Updating the language of Shakespeare or Milton would be a disastrous mistake, but hymns, whatever their literary merit, are not just, or even primarily, literary works; they are worship aids, and as such need to be in language that modern people, most of whom will not be particularly well-educated, can understand. However, Jubilate do it sensitively, and retain the dignity of the language. What they don't do, however, is gender-neutralise them. Whittier's "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind", for example, keeps that first line unchanged, though it is lightly revised, mainly to change "thy" to "your". (Incidentally, I have read that the leading Jubilate people who do the revising of old hymns generally find that 18th-Century hymns need less revising than 19th-Century ones, because they were written in the educated language of the day, whereas many 19th-Century hymnwriters used what was already archaic language.)
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Padre Joshua, yes. There are times when it works and times when it doesn't. I struggle as I hate to do violence to the words of a hymn (or song, or poem or whatever) but appreciate that hymns, creeds whatever are tools for worship and need to be clear and not cause a problem in themselves.
I usually go the 1662 Prayer Book service and experimented for a while with leaving out the 'men' in the 'for us men and for our salvation' part of the creed, so that it was just 'for us and for our salvation' but really, it was too weird. When it was written, 'men' meant both men and women and I know that. So what's the problem? For me, anyway. I suppose others might not understand (though to be honest, that's unlikely in our 8 am service). It wouldn't be written like that today but then it wasn't written today.
As an aside, I have been a christian for 40 years, most of that time in fairly conservative evangelical churches. I have never ever heard anyone, I don't think, try to tell me that the male imagery of God means that God is actually male. I've heard plenty of other stuff that I've decided was rubbish, but never that.
Neither, growing up in a completely secular environment in the '60's, do I ever recall being told that a woman can't be, say, to use Belle Ringer's thought, a postman, because the word is man. On the contrary, I just assumed that the word is 'postman', irrespective of which sex is pushing the letters through the door.
It is always 'chairman' of any committee, as that is the word, irrespective of sex.
Sorry, that is a bit of a tangent.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I've just seen Steve H's post and that does annoy me - I can see absolutely no need whatsoever to change 'thee', 'thy' etc.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I've just seen Steve H's post and that does annoy me - I can see absolutely no need whatsoever to change 'thee', 'thy' etc.
M.
Well, there are plenty of hymnbooks that retain them, if thou wantest them.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
Padre Joshua - so the woman you disagreed with "went on and on", and the one you agreed with "spoke very quietly", eh? Yeah, right. Also, twee anecdotes prove absolutely nothing.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
What makes anyone think God is male?
I always use S/he when referring to God - such creative power can't possibly be male!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
It is always 'chairman' of any committee, as that is the word, irrespective of sex.
M.
No, it isn't; it's often 'Chair' nowadays - and if you want to object, as someone once did to me, that a chair is a piece of furniture, look up "metonymy" in a good dictionary.
[ 05. June 2012, 07:09: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I'm all in favour of using gender-neutral language when it is appropriate. "If any man believes in me" sounds wrong compared to "If anyone believes in me".
But our desire to be fair and balanced should not mean that we ride roughshod over either the Scriptural witness or Trinitarian theology. God is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", not "Mother, Daughter and Holy Spirit" or even "Parent, Child and Holy Spirit". Descriptions like "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" might be true, but mean that God is defined relative to his creation, which is wrong. Such a description is not primary in the way that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is primary.
One of the common ways of saying which beliefs are Christian and which are not is by using the yardstick of the Nicene (Constinoplian) Creed. Were someone to refuse to use with it because it uses the terms Father and Son, I would find it difficult to say in what sense their belief was Christian.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
On the Thee and Thou point, the problem is that they are the intimate, if archaic, forms of "you", (much like the French "tu"). That sense has been lost in modern English, with the result that words originally indicating intimacy convey, instead, formality and distance. We have to be careful of what it is we are communicating.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve H
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
It is always 'chairman' of any committee, as that is the word, irrespective of sex.
M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it isn't; it's often 'Chair' nowadays - and if you want to object, as someone once did to me, that a chair is a piece of furniture, look up "metonymy" in a good dictionary.
Thank you so much for the tip, without it, I would have used a bad dictionary.
I obviously needed to make myself clearer than I did. I always use the word 'chairman'.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
But God is a very odd sort of Father in orthodox theology, isn't s/he?
Co-eternal with the Son, eternally begetting, made known in the Son's kenosis?
Surely the parental imagery can liberate us from our muddled relationships with our parents?
I don't think Padre Joshua's anecdote about the abused woman who found strength in God as Father was twee at all. I found it profound. There is the goodness of parenthood at the root of creation, which will always be compromised and unsatisfactory with our biological parents.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There is the goodness of parenthood at the root of creation, which will always be compromised and unsatisfactory with our biological parents.
I like this - but note parenthood - not fatherhood. To remove the female reduces it to half of the whole.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm not that old - or at least I don't regard myself as such. Yet I was over 35 when I first encountered this one. So I spent half my life in a time when 'he' and 'man' were used both as male and as neutral words, without it bothering anyone, it, being an issue or anyone having noticed the point.
It probably surprises young shipmates to discover how recently this changed.
Historically, it's unusual for linguistic change to be driven by doctrinal argument rather than usage. The only other one I can think of that has stuck, is official English's dropping double negatives in the late C18 because grammarians persuaded the educated that one cancelled out the other rather than emphasised it.
I rather hope this one doesn't over time stick. I get the impression the younger generation are less bothered about it than people currently in their forties.
I don't really believe that our mother and grandmothers either were or felt excluded by the older usage. I knew them, and I don't remember them as diminished people.
It's a nuisance. Splattering ones sentences with 'he or she' is clumsy. Modernising hymns is worse. Apart from dealing with points where the offending word is half of a rhyme - a problem that also arises with 'thou' and 'thee' - 'man' has one syllable and both 'people' and 'person' have two. So it throws the scansion as well as the rhyme.
I comply because I don't want to offend people who get worked up about these things, but in my heart I will resent it and regard it as a retrograde step to the end of my days.
I disagree also with psalters making some psalms plural to avoid having to choose which gender to use. It makes the message less specifically personal.
Mind, I think forbidding us to use double negatives was probably also retrograde. The French etc manage all right with them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
I used to think it was obvious that the use of words such as man and mankind were obviously incluusive.
Until I had children and after one use of the use of man, as meaning all humans, one of my asked me can women not do it then?
I realised then that people can and do read it litarally and inclusive language is important.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I can't find the quote, but somewhere Rosemary Radford Ruether (in Sexism and Godtalk) says that replacing God the Father with God the Mother is not very helpful, since there are such problems with the image of parenthood.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
And in previous translations, the very first image for God in the Bible was maternal: the Spirit brooding on the waters like a mother bird. Now she's a wind.
But for many of us our parents are not the embodiment of the divine, but poor muddled broken humans like ourselves who we can love and relate to.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think feminine language for God is often preferable to inclusive. 'Mother, Daughter, Spirit' could be used interchangeably with 'Father, Son, Spirit' (except for the rhythm). I'm happy to defend 'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' used occasionally, but it oughtn't to be used as a primary way of talking about the Trinity.
As regards hymns, I think masculine language for humanity becomes more and more jarring as we get into the twentieth century. The writers I begin to feel should have known better (even if that's anachronistic in the early twentieth century). Also, frequently what the hymn writer gets for the price of non-inclusive language is less worth what they paid. 'Pleased as man with man to dwell' is such a good line that I think it's worth allowing for being written in the twentieth century; 'Brother will you let me serve you' loses so little in being changed to 'Brother, sister, let me serve you' that there's no excuse for not changing it.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
I haven't read feminist theology texts for a long time now, but I recall that Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza agrees with Ruether in not seeing God primarily as a female or male parent because she says it is problematic for adult women to work with a self-understanding as an infantilized dependent child.
I always feel more welcome in a church with an inclusive liturgy. It was a more fraught situation a couple of decades ago when there was resentment and bewilderment about using inclusive language and women were often asked to explain or justify the reasons for it -- some of us used to walk around with a feminist theology reading list we could hand to men and women who genuinely couldn't understand why the liturgies were changing and were willing to do the homework. Now inclusive language is taken for granted in many churches out here and the atmosphere is far more relaxed.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Reading Crœsos' "Animal Farm" link reminds me of "1984" and Newspeak
The idea behind that was that if language could be modified the way "we" want it, subversive thoughts could not be thought because they could no longer be articulated.
Haven't got a copy to hand, but I think the Declaration of Independence in Newspeak translation becomes a single word. "Thoughtcrime".
Syme's comment is illuminating as well. "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
Now I think the oppression of women has been a great wrong and I think the part the institutional church has played in that (and continues to play in that) is shameful. I'm just uneasy about the thought that cleaning up the language does much to clean up the prejudice and injustice.
I think a better answer is to recognise the organic and communal nature of language, the portmanteau associations of some words, and wise up on that. Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice. Where folks took that "man" and made it "male only", the fault was not in the word, but the prejudice in the mind of the one who applied it that way.
In a way, I think language clean up can sometimes sweep continuing prejudice under the carpet. We think we've done something.
I suppose this may be a politically correct thoughtcrime?
For ancient texts, it is more a matter of honest current translation than anything else. Custard's first sentence example is a good one. "Anyone" is a better translation, even though it may not be a literal one.
Widening the prejudice focus; going to Shakespeare, for example, and looking at Portia's "The Quality of Mercy" in context. The beginning of "Quality of Mercy" is very fine, but there is no doubt that the context is antisemitic when viewed through 21st Century eyes. What is one to do about that? Should "The Merchant of Venice" never be performed? Should the text be gutted? If you try that approach, a lot of the play simply translates as "thoughtcrime"!
I think that where the Bible is clearly intentionally sexist in meaning, it needs to be left that way, for honest exegesis. I think the 10th commandment is sexist for example. A wife is property, superior in position to ox, ass and servant, but inferior in position to a house. Nowt to be done about that, I think. It's a record of how folks thought at that time.
But where it is clearly unintentionally sexist, simply because of the portmanteau language patterns of the time, then what's wrong with the change.
On the other hand ...
The class prejudice in "All things bright and beautiful" (the rich man in his castle etc) is probably a good contrast. "Omit that verse" - which is what most folks do if they sing that song - strikes me as just sensible, if it is to be salvaged for public worship.
We sometimes march in different directions, it seems to me. This is not a simple issue.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice.
Not sure about that. Maybe the prejudice wasn't intended but the use of a gendered word to denote humankind betrays a prejudice that maleness is the normative state of humankind and femaleness is an "other" state. Femaleness is a state "other" than maleness but it is not a state other than "humanness" and should not be expressed as such.
I'm not actually a zealot in relation to gender neutral language and am happy enough to refer to God as He and as a father figure but I think it is dishonest to claim that male-centric language eg "man" to refer to humankind is not the result of gender bias.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice. Where folks took that "man" and made it "male only", the fault was not in the word, but the prejudice in the mind of the one who applied it that way.
William Empson's book The Structure of Complex Words is the best explanation of the problem here. What he tries to tease out is that when we use a word with more than one meaning in a way that more than one meaning could fit we tend to understand a link between the two meanings.
So in sentences like 'in the state of nature the life of man is nasty, brutish and short' (Hobbes) or 'man will reach out to the stars' (Wells) the context doesn't absolutely rule out either 'man' = 'humankind' or 'man' = 'adult males'. What happens is that the language suggests that a good way to understand what humankind is for the present purposes is by attributing to humankind as a whole the qualities typically associated specifically with adult masculine humanity. So for Hobbes humanity is violent and individualistic; for Wells brave and enterprising. In both cases childcare is being considered marginal to what it is to be human.
Basically, whenever man is used to mean both 'humanity / human being' and 'male humanity / male human being' it carries the implication that a male human beings are representative examples of humanity and women and children are special cases.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Basically, whenever man is used to mean both 'humanity / human being' and 'male humanity / male human being' it carries the implication that a male human beings are representative examples of humanity and women and children are special cases.
This.
Nice one, Dafyd. The more we really think about linguistic associations, the more we appreciate the complexity of the relationship between words and prejudiced notions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice.
Not sure about that. Maybe the prejudice wasn't intended but the use of a gendered word to denote humankind betrays a prejudice that maleness is the normative state of humankind and femaleness is an "other" state. Femaleness is a state "other" than maleness but it is not a state other than "humanness" and should not be expressed as such.
Exactly.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mary LA:
not seeing God primarily as a female or male parent because she says it is problematic for adult women to work with a self-understanding as an infantilized dependent child.
Surely it's problematic for men as well?
Surely the orthodox language of the Trinity subverts the power structure of the family, as the Father never exists independently of the Son?
And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father-- the one in heaven. Matthew 23.9
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm all in favour of using gender-neutral language when it is appropriate. "If any man believes in me" sounds wrong compared to "If anyone believes in me".
But our desire to be fair and balanced should not mean that we ride roughshod over either the Scriptural witness or Trinitarian theology. God is "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", not "Mother, Daughter and Holy Spirit" or even "Parent, Child and Holy Spirit". Descriptions like "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer" might be true, but mean that God is defined relative to his creation, which is wrong. Such a description is not primary in the way that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is primary.
One of the common ways of saying which beliefs are Christian and which are not is by using the yardstick of the Nicene (Constinoplian) Creed. Were someone to refuse to use with it because it uses the terms Father and Son, I would find it difficult to say in what sense their belief was Christian.
"Father" and "Son" are images, metaphors for God. They are the primary images for God in Scripture and in tradition, and therefore deserve a primary and prominent place in our liturgy. But to fail to recognize-- as your post does-- that they are, in fact, images is an excellent illustration of precisely why this is such an important issue.
The remedy IMHO is to do what Scripture itself does-- to use a variety of images/ metaphorical language for God-- including but not limited to Father & Son.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I raised this issue recently with a certain clergyman, who responded: "The inclusive language is a justice issue and with 75% of our church being women who spent most of their lives being put down by the male world, many have expressed genuine support in the new language."
What a great way to increase the percentage of women in the church from 75% to about 90%.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not that old - or at least I don't regard myself as such. Yet I was over 35 when I first encountered this one.
...I rather hope this one doesn't over time stick. I get the impression the younger generation are less bothered about it than people currently in their forties.
I don't really believe that our mother and grandmothers either were or felt excluded by the older usage. I knew them, and I don't remember them as diminished people.
It's a nuisance. Splattering ones sentences with 'he or she' is clumsy. Modernising hymns is worse. Apart from dealing with points where the offending word is half of a rhyme - a problem that also arises with 'thou' and 'thee' - 'man' has one syllable and both 'people' and 'person' have two. So it throws the scansion as well as the rhyme.
I comply because I don't want to offend people who get worked up about these things, but in my heart I will resent it and regard it as a retrograde step to the end of my days.
Perhaps, rather than "resenting it to the end of your days", you can see it as an act of grace. If you listen to the stories of those who have been hurt by masculine imagery for God, even though this has not been an issue for you, perhaps your heart can be moved by compassion, rather than resentment. Perhaps you can see the "sacrifice" of having to listen to an awkward phrase (although, again, with effort they can usually be made less awkward and discordant) as similar to the sacrifices we make to reach out to other cultures. It's an act of hospitality.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The only places where I insist on the traditional formula (Father, Son and Holy Spirit):
1) When reciting the creeds
2) When reciting the Lord's Prayer
3) When baptizing a person
For me, all three of these situations are expressions of catholicity. To me, it is appropriate to recite the same words that Christians use throughout history, to express our common apostolic faith.
In other situations such as in sermons, extemporaneous prayer and in contemporary theological discussions, I think it is commendable to use multiple metaphors for God. I actually don't think God cares that much if I say "Loving God" rather than "Father" in my personal prayers.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now I think the oppression of women has been a great wrong and I think the part the institutional church has played in that (and continues to play in that) is shameful. I'm just uneasy about the thought that cleaning up the language does much to clean up the prejudice and injustice.
I think a better answer is to recognise the organic and communal nature of language, the portmanteau associations of some words, and wise up on that. Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice. Where folks took that "man" and made it "male only", the fault was not in the word, but the prejudice in the mind of the one who applied it that way.
In a way, I think language clean up can sometimes sweep continuing prejudice under the carpet. We think we've done something.
I disagree. As mentioned already, the roots of sexist language may not be as benign as we assume.
Similarly, changing our language really does change the way we think. Not overnight, of course. But it does, I think, have an impact, particularly over generations. I believe changing our racist language, for example, so that the "n-word" is now unacceptable in most parts of society whereas quite common when I was a child, has had an impact. It's not the only factor in the rise of civil rights, nor probably the most significant factor, but it is one of many-- and also reflects accurately and appropriately those changes in societal beliefs. Same with inclusive language.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...I think that where the Bible is clearly intentionally sexist in meaning, it needs to be left that way, for honest exegesis. I think the 10th commandment is sexist for example. A wife is property, superior in position to ox, ass and servant, but inferior in position to a house. Nowt to be done about that, I think. It's a record of how folks thought at that time.
But where it is clearly unintentionally sexist, simply because of the portmanteau language patterns of the time, then what's wrong with the change.
"Gender specific" would be a better word here than "sexist". And that is precisely how inclusive-language translation works. No one is suggesting that it should be otherwise.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Those who are interested might not be aware but there is a change in perception in the population. I discovered this when I accidentally used a first edition of the Good News Bible in a church which used the second edition. Someone pulled me up on the sexist language (someone who'd have grown up with KJV, RV and RSV as the only options) and asked me what version I was using because the text was so different. The main difference was inclusive language.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
After a few years of celebrating Rite I eucharists, I've never heard a single person change "judge of all men" to "judge of all people" in the confession. I've heard all the other "mens" changed or omitted but never that one. Just an observation that makes me go hmmm.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Almost all of the responses that are upset about inclusive language read as "I am upset, so the church shouldn't do it" while ignoring or actively opposing the other people who say "I have been upset by the attitude of the church to me and my group, so we should change"
IOW, very little recognition that either side has anything to say to the other.
Given that I live in a deanery in which over half of the priests will not accept communion from a woman priest, despite OoW having been a done issue for many years in Canada (we've had women as bishops), there is a point to be made by having inclusive language as an indicator that some things do change. Do any of you think that the church, as seen by "outsiders", is improved by being dogmatically rude to half of the population?
I do understand that many of the older hymns may be changed badly by willy-nilly changing the wordings in a poor way. This may be a good reason to avoid singing some of those hymns, and it may be a good reason to be more sensible in doing the "translation".
But to say, as one poster has, that the church may as well be just for women isn't exactly going to improve the health of the church in our society. (I guess he said 90% women, which seems to imply that any males who are in the 10% are so feminised that they don't really count...or something)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The only places where I insist on the traditional formula (Father, Son and Holy Spirit):
1) When reciting the creeds
2) When reciting the Lord's Prayer
3) When baptizing a person
For me, all three of these situations are expressions of catholicity. To me, it is appropriate to recite the same words that Christians use throughout history, to express our common apostolic faith.
.
At my church these are the times when traditional language is used as well with the exception that during the Nicene Creed a large portion of the congregation uses 'she' for the Holy Spirit and it is quite striking the first time you hear it.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Where "man" clearly means "humankind" there was never any intended prejudice. Where folks took that "man" and made it "male only", the fault was not in the word, but the prejudice in the mind of the one who applied it that way.
William Empson's book The Structure of Complex Words is the best explanation of the problem here. What he tries to tease out is that when we use a word with more than one meaning in a way that more than one meaning could fit we tend to understand a link between the two meanings.
So in sentences like 'in the state of nature the life of man is nasty, brutish and short' (Hobbes) or 'man will reach out to the stars' (Wells) the context doesn't absolutely rule out either 'man' = 'humankind' or 'man' = 'adult males'. What happens is that the language suggests that a good way to understand what humankind is for the present purposes is by attributing to humankind as a whole the qualities typically associated specifically with adult masculine humanity. So for Hobbes humanity is violent and individualistic; for Wells brave and enterprising. In both cases childcare is being considered marginal to what it is to be human.
Basically, whenever man is used to mean both 'humanity / human being' and 'male humanity / male human being' it carries the implication that a male human beings are representative examples of humanity and women and children are special cases.
An interesting post, Dafyd. I'm aware of the book but have never read it, so please make allowances for that in the following:-
I think this subject is related to the matter of linguistic determinism - as does B62's earlier post. Which is to say how language determines our thought patterns, or vice versa. Though usually the former.
I think the strong assertion - that it is determinative in either direction - is generally regarded as disproven. And there are empirical observations I could pluck out of the air that seem to bear that out. People are always trying to affect our thinking by changing the way we talk about things. The pair "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is as good an example I can think of. But it's often observed that if people don't want to change the way they think about things along to your way, all that happens is that the new terminology itself is devalued. The sad example of the word "spastic" springs to mind. This might give comfort to B62 and his newspeak example.
But the weaker claim - that there may be an association between the two seems to be accepted, insofar as it is testable - in some circumstances. That's not a long way from what Empson is saying here.
There is a rather alarming corollary though about using feminine gendered language, if the above is true. Feminine gendered language has no history of inclusion of the other. In English it has been the marked form of the language. If masculine gendered language is potentially exclusionary by virtue of its masculine-normativity, feminine-gendered language is exclusionary full stop. Or if you like to express things this way, it is even more sexist, unless you are using it in a private capacity I guess. Perhaps.
I suppose I shouldn't need to point out that this is a linguistic problem by virtue of the way that English language handles gendered language. Other languages do not have the language gender correlated to sex.
I could also add that changing to impersonal ways of talking about God will also carry consequences, but that is for another day. My main point is to draw attention to the fact that changing language will probably "affect the way you think, way more than you think".
The reverse is true of course. The church has always asserted credally that Christ became anthropos - which is to say he became human. We say man, but as everybody agrees, the valence of the word man has changed. It is only fair that we should continue to teach that he became human, and if using those words is the best way to do it, then we should do so.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I usually go the 1662 Prayer Book service and experimented for a while with leaving out the 'men' in the 'for us men and for our salvation' part of the creed, so that it was just 'for us and for our salvation' but really, it was too weird.
The first regular Communion services I ever attended, back in the 1970s, had "for us men and for our salvation" and I couldn't bring myself to say it. For me, then, that sounded as if it meant males only. So I didn't say it. "For us" is simply a better translation of the Greek original, as well as being true.
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I've just seen Steve H's post and that does annoy me - I can see absolutely no need whatsoever to change 'thee', 'thy' etc.
Same here. If you are going to leave the language as it is, leave it as it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It's a nuisance. Splattering ones sentences with 'he or she' is clumsy.
True. The natural and correct English usaqe is "they".
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I'm not actually a zealot in relation to gender neutral language and am happy enough to refer to God as He and as a father figure but I think it is dishonest to claim that male-centric language eg "man" to refer to humankind is not the result of gender bias.
I think there are two separate questions.
Using masculine language about ourselves (as in "us men") is simply false. Most people in church aren't men. Or liturgy ought not to ignore most of the worshippers. There is really no excuse for it.
On the other hand, using masculine language about God can falsely suggest that God is male. But our excuse for it is that it is Biblical, its revealed. If we are to talk about God as personal we have to talk about God in simile and metaphor. And if we are saying that God is like any sort of human we're going to potentially upset someone.
There is good reason to use the symbolism for which we have Scriptural warrant. As Christians we can't really get away from calling God "Father" because Jesus did. But we can also remember that there are plenty of other symbols for God in Scripture, including feminine and female ones.
And perhaps not to go beyond that as well. The nature of God is unknowable to us other than by revelation so we are not capable of making up new symbols to represent God because we are not capable of knowing God other than through the symbols God has made God known to us.
(Plenty of them though - Father, Mother, lion, lamb, bread, wine, light, the Son of man (which is a gender-neutral term, just "human" really), Lord, redeemer, waterseller, hen, dove, eagle, storm, fire, smoke, cloud, living waters, mountain, rock, wind, sun, star, husband, teacher, king, fortress, tower, temple, judge, brother, friend, sceptre, soap, tree, vine...)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The first regular Communion services I ever attended, back in the 1970s, had "for us men and for our salvation" and I couldn't bring myself to say it. For me, then, that sounded as if it meant males only. So I didn't say it. "For us" is simply a better translation of the Greek original, as well as being true.
Though rather ambiguous. Does it mean 'us humans' or 'us Christians' or even, 'us here at St Holier-than-Thou's'?
I would go for 'us humans' except it sounds clumsy. I suppose simply 'us' is OK as long as it is backed up with good teaching.
quote:
(Plenty of them though - Father, Mother, lion, lamb, bread, wine, light, the Son of man (which is a gender-neutral term, just "human" really), Lord, redeemer, waterseller, hen, dove, eagle, storm, fire, smoke, cloud, living waters, mountain, rock, wind, sun, star, husband, teacher, king, fortress, tower, temple, judge, brother, friend, sceptre, soap, tree, vine...)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Good list, ken!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
and of course not forgetting Lady Wisdom, of whom we would no doubt have heard more had not a lot of the wisdom literature been excluded form our (protestant) bibles. But she's still there in Proverbs.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
