homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary? (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  16  17  18 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899

 - Posted      Profile for Ginga     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you haven't said WHY he thinks you can't be a pilot

Under the example given, he thinks I can't be a pilot because I'm female. You could substitute in "preacher" or something, but then I run the risk of being shot down for not remembering a post that happened two years ago, or similar. I was deliberately trying to use a new example.

It was just to explain why every time someone of uses the "but I can't give birth, there now, don't you feel better?" line I want to punch something, because it's not the same thing at all. I was rather hoping Gordon would then stop using useless comparisons (like the queen one) and explain himself in a way that actually helped me understand him.

[ 13. June 2005, 03:51: Message edited by: Ginga ]

Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB's post makes me realize that I should probably clarify that I'm of the "fidelity to the text" persuasion when it comes to Biblical translation, with explanatory footnotes when needed. (And I can't resist pointing out that either Alter or Fox (or possibly both - I've loaned out my copies and can't check) notes that in the OT, the Hebrew "birthed" was often mistranslated as the more masculine "begat" unless the passage was about a literal woman giving birth.)

It's in the liturgy I see the need for inclusive language - and the liturgy seems to be where exclusive language is most problematic. There is already much inclusiveness in Anglican liturgy, and some of it is very well done. For example, from the post communion prayer:

quote:
Almighty and everliving God,....dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs, through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom....
Members, people, heirs - not a gender-specific collective noun is used (unless you consider "heir" as masculine, but I think this usage has become neutral), but the text does an excellent job of conveying the concept Paul was talking about when he wrote "sons of God." And this language isn't new - it's in the 1892 and 1928 BCPs as well.

I tried a little experiment as I was waiting to do lockup this Sunday - I pulled out the BCP and, where I found gender-neutral language, I substituted in the collective male. The results were interesting:

"The Gifts of God for the men of God. Take them in remembrance...."

"Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your sons the Body and Blood..."

"...we who have been redeemed by Him, and made new men by water and the Spirit, now bring before you these gifts..."

"Lord, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy men..."

"Remember all your sons, and those who seek your truth..."

If you accept the "collective male includes the female so no need to change argument," all of these phrases should be acceptable to you. The fact that I find them as jarring as I do is making me rethink my personal lack of objection to the male collective. (In case you don't have the fortitude to wade back through the thread, I've advocated change on the basis of those who do find it distancing, though I previously didn't.)

ETA: all of this has made me ponder liturgy IS interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps a new Purg thread in a day or two...

[ 13. June 2005, 04:34: Message edited by: Sienna ]

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you haven't said WHY he thinks you can't be a pilot

Under the example given, he thinks I can't be a pilot because I'm female.
Right. The point still stands that you are equivocating on "could".

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
GAAH - Can't edit my edits properly...

All this has made me ponder the extent to which liturgy IS the interpretation of Scripture....

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
All this has made me ponder the extent to which liturgy IS the interpretation of Scripture....

As opposed to what? I'd be interested in seeing that thread.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899

 - Posted      Profile for Ginga     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousetheif: I know, I've figured out what you meant now (my female brain is working slowly at the moment. Apologies).

I'm not arguing the theology or the rightness or wrongness of the particular theological stance. I'm trying to point out to Gordon that his examples of why I shouldn't get upset at having my horizons trimmed don't work. He says I shouldn't mind not being able to be a preacher because I don't mind not being able to be queen. I say that's not true.

Whether or not I've muddled my uses of 'could' would be relevant if I was arguing against headship. I'm not, I'm arguing against Gordon's examples being useful. Instead of telling me he can't be a mother, I want him to come up with something that's relevant that he can't do because he's a man. A good example might be if no men could be left in charge of children, because looking after children is women's work, regardless of how well they might be able to actually look after them. I would like an example of men being constrained by the men's-work/women's work boundaries. Alternatively, I would like an example of a role that it is perfectly reasonable to stop me from filling on the grounds of my sex, even though I have the abilities and legal freedom to do it (for these purposes, you could obviously use all women, to save me listing my cv).

If I said no men could give birth, no-one would mind. If I said no men could be left in charge of their own chlidren for the evening, people would mind. That's the reason I don't like what Gordon's using as examples, and why I'm hoping he can help me understand him using some different examples. Sorry if I muddled the issue. It's all one big tangent from the OP anyway, for which a third round of apologies.

[ 13. June 2005, 04:55: Message edited by: Ginga ]

Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MT - I'm still working out exactly how to express my idea - hopefully in a day or two....

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
. As far as I can work out slavery is a historically and culturally diverse phenomenon. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it isn't. It's not clearly condemned in Scripture.

Except that slave traders are amongst those listed in the NT amongst those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they repent). I recognise that the reference is to slave trading not slaves but its difficult to see how the latter can be justified when the former is condemned.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As far as I can work out slavery is a historically and culturally diverse phenomenon. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it isn't. It's not clearly condemned in Scripture.

I am astonished that a Christian should write this as we enter the 21st century. Just because the Bible doesn't clearly condemn something doesn't mean that it must therefore be OK.

As has already been pointed out, your example of present day slavery is just codswallop. There is still serious slavery going on in our world today and it is important that Christians make a clear, unequivocal statement that it is wrong - completely wrong.

But, of course, your theological position has trapped you in a corner, hasn't it? The Bible doesn't clearly condemn slavery - and so if you agree that slavery is wrong, you are going beyond the Bible. But if you do that for slavery, you cannot object when others do the same for such matters as women in leadership (or even homosexuality). So, in order to maintain the party line on other matters, you are forced to come to a bizarre (and nausiating) conclusion.

It took a long time in coming, but the Christian Church made the stand - regardless of the lack of specific statements in the Bible, slavery (real slavery in all its forms) is a sin. You should be shamed for even suggesting that it might be OK in some circumstances.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
InigoB:
quote:
Assume we had bibles that say "sons", others say "children", again others say "heirs", some might say "sons and daughters" and finally some might parphrase this so that there's not one word anymore. What would we do then when trying to discuss this passage, indeed what is it that we do in Kerygmania when ecountering such a problem? We say "Well, in the Greek it says 'sons', but in this context that means..."
No need to asume it, I think that is exactly the situation we are in. And, in fact, I think such diversity is helpful. Your average member of the congregation doesn't know Greek or Hebrew. If they get together for a Bible study then different translations bring out nuances of the original term. Given that no one word in Language X ever completely translates another word in Language Y this is important. Very full footnotes serve the same purpose, but can become so unweildy that they may not be used much.

Slight tangent, but within the remit of the thread. Over the weekend I took a blessing for 25 years of marriage for some old friends. They had put the service booklet together, using Common Worship. I was startled halfway through to find the response:
quote:
Blessed are you, Lord Jesus Christ;
You have brought new life to mankind.

This startled me as I thought CW had been written on inclusive lines throughout. Can anyone who knows how it was put together (Charles Read?) explain how this slipped through?

And Oscar, in the department of no surprises, I agree with you completely.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But, of course, your theological position has trapped you in a corner, hasn't it? The Bible doesn't clearly condemn slavery - and so if you agree that slavery is wrong, you are going beyond the Bible. But if you do that for slavery, you cannot object when others do the same for such matters as women in leadership (or even homosexuality). So, in order to maintain the party line on other matters, you are forced to come to a bizarre (and nausiating) conclusion.

Actually, this is not the case at all. Gordon can answer for himself, of course. But I think all he has to say is this: Slavery is, like all human relations, tainted by sin. But unlike in other cases, we can always find a different form of relationship between humans to replace slavery, which is less sinful on any reasonable overall evaluation. Hence we clearly should seek to abolish slavery in all its forms to reduce sin. The bible does not condemn slavery explicitly, but it does condemn sin. What has changed since then is precisely that we have become aware of the fact that slavery is always more sinful than some other relation. This is our advance over ancient society, so we act on it. By doing so we remain faithful to the bible. From all this nothing much follows concerning other issues. For example, if one believes that homosexuality is sinful, then clearly it does not follow from this argument against slavery that one should not oppose homosexuality. (Please note the "if ... then" structure. I'm not trying to open a debate on homosexuality with this.)

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756

 - Posted      Profile for Nicodemia   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB posted:

quote:
It seems to me that there's a consumer attitude to the bible at work here. It should read fast and easy, and one shouldn't need to consult footnotes or worse, commentary. Rather than contemplating the bible slowly, it's a bit of "Jesus time" while the ads are on. This is a far cry from the Lectio Divina of old, and in my eyes, wrong.

This is just the old "either/or" argument. Either we are morons reading "The Message" in between watching TV or we are scholars searching for the truth and studying koine Greek in our spare time.

What is wrong with having two sorts of Bibles (or three, or four)? I would imagine many Shipmates have two or more copies of the Bible in various translations. A contemporary paraphrase can often give a real "feel" of what the Bible is saying in our time, whilst for serious study we need a good translation. But God can reveal himself with either version.

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Slavery is, like all human relations, tainted by sin..... we have become aware of the fact that slavery is always more sinful than some other relation.

So what you are saying is that slavery is not - in itself - wrong and sinful; which leaves open the possibility that there could be contexts in which slavery is acceptable. I'm gobsmacked that this should even be a theoretical possibility. Did Wilberforce et al labour for so long under a complete delusion?

Whereas I have no problem in saying clearly and unequivocally:

Slavery is wrong. It is always wrong. Christians should always oppose and denounce slavery.

(If you think this is a purely academic point, check out this antislavery website. Now is not the time for Christians to go soft on slavery)

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This is just the old "either/or" argument. Either we are morons reading "The Message" in between watching TV or we are scholars searching for the truth and studying koine Greek in our spare time. What is wrong with having two sorts of Bibles (or three, or four)? I would imagine many Shipmates have two or more copies of the Bible in various translations.

I'm afraid this is just the old "either/or" reality... I doubt that most Christians in the world have more than one bible (if they have one at all). Then it becomes really important which bible they base their belief on. I share your suspicion that most Shipmates are "hobby scholars" and have several bibles and probably several bible commentaries, too. Even if they don't know koine, they will not be easily misled. But what about the person who owns "The Message" and thinks that this is "the bible", full stop?

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
A contemporary paraphrase can often give a real "feel" of what the Bible is saying in our time, whilst for serious study we need a good translation. But God can reveal himself with either version.

God's grace knows no bounds, for sure, but we shouldn't put Him to the test with crappy bible translations. [Biased] The "feel" you are getting is simply one specific commentary which is not written separately (as it should IMHO), but integrated into the text. You like this commentary? Fine. But you still need a "good translation for serious study". Do these paraphrased bibles have a disclaimer on page one "You should also buy a 'good translation'?" And anyway, as you can see from my specific comment on "sons", I would probably consider a good many more conventional bibles not a "particularly great translation". I wouldn't be surprised if it was the majority of bibles now being sold. That is somewhat worrying then.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918

 - Posted      Profile for Flubb     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
<list snipped>
Why? Both lists contain things which are part of my identity, after all. The differentiation is simple: one assesses things relevant to the task, the second set of criteria are not relevant. My shoesize, my race and, yes, my gender, have absolutely no bearing on my competancy as a speaker. That is why assessing me on those is bigoted.

On one level, yes, your shoe size and gender have no bearing on your ability to teach, and to assess you on those things may be bigoted. But your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher. The distinctions created by God are seen as being of little importance. I find this curious, because I would have thought that rehabilitation of the female sex would start here, rather than with language.

I am aware that this may not be the point your post was directed towards, but I'm interested to see if anyone will look at the differences as something fundamentally theological rather than merely biological. We tend to look at competancy as the major criteria for a job, but I've yet to see people asking whether competancy is the only issue.

</tangent>

--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...

Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So what you are saying is that slavery is not - in itself - wrong and sinful; which leaves open the possibility that there could be contexts in which slavery is acceptable. I'm gobsmacked that this should even be a theoretical possibility.

I'm not convinced that you've read carefully what I wrote. For me "slavery" denotes a specific form of human relationship. What I've then said is that slavery is always "more wrong and more sinful" than other human relationships which could take its place. Hence I can (and did) fully endorse:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Christians should always oppose and denounce slavery.

If you ask me whether slavery is wrong and sinful "as such", then I answer that it is, precisely in the above sense (which is practical, rather than Platonic...).

However, all this was not actually the intended topic of my post. Rather I wished to show that Gordon had actually left an escape route while painting himself into a corner. [Razz]

[ 13. June 2005, 09:30: Message edited by: IngoB ]

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb (to Peronel):
your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher.

This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? For example, in a residential children's home you would ideally want a mix of male and female social workers on each shift, precisely because they are different. But you wouldn't (or shouldn't)assume that any one woman would be better at the cooking and cleaning that any one man, not that any one man would be better at hill-walking and canoeing than any one woman.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, crucially, (because the above exchange has the potential to be a major tangent) if women are so very different from men, isn't that all the more reason for the language used in services to explicitly include them?

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mousethief - a tangent

I think I "got" what Ginga was posting, despite the equivocal "coulds" and "couldn'ts".

The issue is of restrictions of roles by prior condition. The "inclusive language" argument is just one of the battlegrounds.

In secular employment, there have been moves which are recognised generally as leading to an increase in fairness. Selection for employment roles (either recruitment or promotion) is now seen to be fair if determined by aptitude, gift, character, experience. Distinctions on grounds of gender or race or any irrelevant disability are discouraged as being unfair. (In practice, there is a good deal of chicanery, which I accept, but the principles are now pretty clearly stated, and most folks think they are right.)

The church in the western world would be wise to recognise that a change has occurred. Poeple will naturally ask the question. If prior conditions are applied to roles on the basis of gender, why do these different selection criteria apply today? And the reason is that the secular selection for employment model looks fair and right. It also looks pretty much in line with the parable of the talents, Galatians 3, and the glorious liberty of the children of God. If role attributions in the church do not look "fair or right" any more, then they get in the way of the message. This is not an argument in favour of fashion, or against faithfulness to tradition (at least in my view), but it is an issue of current day evangelism.

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[attempt to kill my involvement in tangent]Assuming the examples I have in my head of slavery are not in fact slavery (including the 'scholarship' example I gave earlier), then I am more than willing to say that slavery is evil and condemn it in the sorts of terms that OtG does.[/end attempt to kill my involvement in tangent. Interesting question though. I hope someone raises it as a thread in its own right in a few weeks, when I may have more time to get involved in it]

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756

 - Posted      Profile for Nicodemia   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB said

quote:
I would probably consider a good many more conventional bibles not a "particularly great translation". I wouldn't be surprised if it was the majority of bibles now being sold. That is somewhat worrying then.

What is a "great translation" then? Or are we back at the "KJV-only" view?

And is not it better to read "The Message" than no Bible? It can lead to a non-Christian becoming an enquiring Christian, and being encouraged to read other Bibles.

And I'm not too sure what the "it" means in your second sentence. Do you mean "The Message" represents the majority of Bibles sold, or "a not very great translation" representing the majority sold? And which one would that be?

Better not get too involved in this tangent, or I will be deep in expired equine territory!

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Except that slave traders are amongst those listed in the NT amongst those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they repent). I recognise that the reference is to slave trading not slaves but its difficult to see how the latter can be justified when the former is condemned.

Big tangent:

The langueage used in the NT doesn't clearly distinguish between chattel slaves, indentured servants ("bondsmen" & "bondswomen" we'd have said in England 1400 years later) & servants working for wages.

There are a number of words used for servant & they are not always restricted to free or unfree persons.


There is also a cultural overtone that we miss (int he OT, f not in the NT) in that it is regarded as better to be part of an extended household than it is to live in isolation. So the status of someone who freely chooses to be bound to another for a term of years, or for life, can be higher than that of someone who must wander about seeking casual employment.

So objecting to slave trade rather than slave holding might be a way of making a distinction between chattel slavery (where people can be disposed of at will by their masters) and people engaged as long-term servants (who we might consider as apprentices or permanent staff)

Even in the modern USA, where the status of slaves was on the whole lower than in the Greek-speaking world in NT times, there was the concept that being "sold down the river" broke some sort of mutual bond between slave and master - an unequal bond, but one which a slave had a rational expectation of being fulfilled by both sides.

Also, at least in NT times (not so sure about OT), a household slave sometimes derived some status from their master. The stewards or secretaties or housekeepers of wealthy people or aristocrats were often technically slaves, but could have a higher status than some free men - in Rome there were slaves who owned slaves. Some of these people are in the New Testament the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip met was almost certainly a slave. The Centurion's servant the Jesus healed would have been a slave.

Slaves of that sort of status were commonly freed on the death of their master, or else in middle age, as a sort of retirement present or soemtimes on the occasion of their own marriage (slaves could not freely marry in Rome). Much of the middle class & skilled workforce of Rome was descended from such freedmen, who were free but could not normally in NT times become citizens. Employment was regarded as demeaning for a free citizen - they could go into business, or farm their own land, or join the army or government, but were not supposed to hire themselves out to others for money.

In the case of a rich household engaged in trade or business a few of the slaves might be themselves very rich - the equivalent of the CEO of a major corporation these days. In some periods (including the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius) much of the business of Imperial government was carried on by some of Emperor's personal slaves who were in effect senior civil servants, but owed loyalty to the Emperor personally rather than the Republic. In Jesus's time the person who was the Roman equivalent of a modern day Whitehouse Chief of Staff in the USA, or a British Cabinet Secretary, was a slave. And also a very, very rich man.

Of course the majority of slaves were not of that kind of status. Most of them were domestic servants, field labourers, or manual workers, and probably had short and uncomfortable lives, with little in the way of personal autonomy.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb (to Peronel):
your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher.

This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? For example, in a residential children's home you would ideally want a mix of male and female social workers on each shift, precisely because they are different. But you wouldn't (or shouldn't)assume that any one woman would be better at the cooking and cleaning that any one man, not that any one man would be better at hill-walking and canoeing than any one woman.
Indeed. I suspect that even with everything else being equal, there are likely always to be more male engineers than female engineers because it does seem that men are more likely to think in that sort of way. However, at the moment, I think there are possibly women who could be engineers who do not think about it because it is seen as being a predominantly male field, although this is an improvement on 50 or so years ago when women couldn't be considered for it at all. Similarly (and perhaps less controversially), as there are regulations about height/fitness etc for firefighters, this is probably always going to be male dominated as a higher proportion of men will fit those criteria; of people who are 5'6"* or taller, more than 50% will be men at a guess.

Wasn't there a thread a while ago about astronauts and research that showed women tended to cope better in space (physically) than men and was there therefore good reason to only consider women to be astronauts?

Carys

*to pluck a height at random as I'm running late and so haven't got time to hunt to see if there is indeed a height restriction.

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The original text should be translated as faithfully as possible (in the sense of "literal") while still intelligible in the new language, simply because only that allows everyone to apply their knowledge and interpretations to a common base.

[...]

I want my bible (and indeed any original text in translation) as much as possible to give me this without having to consult the original text. That is, I want it to say "sons" and then provide interpretative information in a footnote, if necessary. This has nothing to do with what I think of using inclusive language, it simply concerns fidelity to the text.

[...]

The "idiomatic impact" of a translation is invariably "clouded by the cultural perceptions of the time". Thus 1. is at odds with 2., what are we to do? Your solution seems to be that we should provide a new translation every decade or so, to update the "idiomatic impact" according to the changing culture. I think this is futile.

yes, but...

... we are mixing up a number of different "inclusive language" projects and questions & your comments really only apply to one or two of them. A list might include:


  • 1) Should we deliberatly alter Bible language in translation to suit our cultural or theological ideas? Most here would say "no" I think. I'm completely with IngoB here - wherever possible use male words when the original does and female when the original does and neutral when the original does.
  • 2) Should we update older non-biblical texts in our own language to suit our ideas - should we edit old hymns or liturgies? My gut feeling is no, leave them alone if they still make sense. Just as I like the way we in the CofE have left the "thees" and "thous" in the BCP alone, and written new words for our new Common Worship liturgies. But its not a big deal.
  • 3) When writing new texts, or making new songs and new prayers, should we use language that assumes that Christians are male? No, obviously not. There has been no exuse in English for this for a century (a reason why CW is better than older 20th century CofE liturgies)
  • 4) Should we use male, neutra,l or female language about Jesus? It must be male. Jesus is a man and to use neutral words for him is very artificial in English and might tend to imply a disbelief in the reality of the Incarnation.
  • 5) Should we use masculine or feminine grammatical gender when talking about about God? This is the hardest question. English commits us to using "he" or "she" in many circumstances. My feeling here is that we should take our cue from the Bible, which tends to use both masculine and neutral language about God (as comes naturally in the original languages) but sometimes (but rarely) feminine grammatical gender (especially about the Spirit of God and about Holy Wisdom)
  • 6) Should we use male or female metaphors about God? Lots of recent songs and liturgies refer to God as a mother, or us other female metaphor and language. Again, if we take our cue from the Bible, most of the analogies are male, but some are female. So we can use either.

I think we are in closer agreement about point (1) than we seem to be. In fact the only person arguing for such change is Gordon Cheng who claims not to be! I probably hold theological opinions that are closer to his than are those of most posters on this thread, but one thing we disagree on is the roles of women and men in the church. And he is defending a mistranslation of the New Testament & other ancient documents in order to support his position. He wants to translate Greek and Hebrew words that really mean "human beings" into English words that mean "males" because that is closer to the views of his church.

And this thread really is about English. Languiages are different., We once had grammatical gender, we lost it. But there is a fossil of it in our pronouns and a few other words. So we have to take that into account when translating. People writing prayers or songs in French or Kiswahili or whatever no doubt face different issues. For Bantu languages do not distinguish between masculineand feminine grammatically- there is one word where we have "he" and "she" - but they often can distinguish between animate & inanimate, or human and other animal, or low status and high status, which will present translators with a whole load of choices and opportunities we don't have in English.

One last point - the idea that God is male is nonsense, and the idea that God is somehow masculine in a sense that is distinct from maleness is at least controversial (if it means anything at all) and some would say heretical. Language that seems to encourage those concepts of God, or to commit us to them, ought perhaps to be avoided. Even if, following the Bible, we mostly continue to use masculine pronouns and male metaphors about God, were I to come across someone who could never use female language about God, never call God "she" instead of "he", then I would wonder if they had not fallen into the heresy of thinking that God actually is male.

[fixed code]

[ 13. June 2005, 16:25: Message edited by: RuthW ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people.

Dear Ruth,

At some point you described your position as "nuanced" (not going to hunt for it - the thread's too long).

Rightly or wrongly, I sense a tension between the liberal "of course I'm not going to force inclusive language on anyone" and the radical "moral imperative to change" aspects of your position.

The quote above is from your radical side. It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war, and that anyone who wills the end should therefore will the means.

Some of us don't will the means. Some of us see the "war" as an over-simplistic worldview which doesn't (for example) do justice to the views of those women who are not feminists.

I'm not trying to knock down a straw man here; just trying to explain how I can think that you're only half right on this issue...

Had the original proposition said "Is well-written inclusive language a good idea in cases where a significant element of the congregation feel distanced from the message of the gospel by traditional gendered language ?" then I'd say that you'd proved your point and the answer is "yes".

It's the radical "necessary" where we part company.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war

Another status quo inversion. To put it another way: non-inclusive language is a weapon being unconsciously wielded every day and we're asking you to take a little more thought and consider when/if and how far you could go towards laying it down.

It's not about starting a war, you see, but about ending it.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Phaedra
Apprentice
# 8385

 - Posted      Profile for Phaedra   Email Phaedra   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

[*]5) Should we use masculine or feminine grammatical gender when talking about about God? This is the hardest question. English commits us to using "he" or "she" in many circumstances. My feeling here is that we should take our cue from the Bible, which tends to use both masculine and neutral language about God (as comes naturally in the original languages) but sometimes (but rarely) feminine grammatical gender (especially about the Spirit of God and about Holy Wisdom)

An alternative that's admittedly awkward, but strikes me as a good one, is not to use gender at all: use God and Godself instead of pronouns.
Posts: 27 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963

 - Posted      Profile for Charles Read   Author's homepage   Email Charles Read   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Slight tangent, but within the remit of the thread. Over the weekend I took a blessing for 25 years of marriage for some old friends. They had put the service booklet together, using Common Worship. I was startled halfway through to find the response:

quote:Blessed are you, Lord Jesus Christ;
You have brought new life to mankind.

This startled me as I thought CW had been written on inclusive lines throughout. Can anyone who knows how it was put together (Charles Read?) explain how this slipped through?

Thanks for spotting this - it has now been incorporated into the latest draft of my PhD / book on inclusive language! I don't know how this got through, but I will ask around....

--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi

"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh

Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Many thanks - I would be interested to know. (Given all the discusion we've been having here I nearly stumbled when I got to that point in the service. As a word on the page I hadn't noticed "mankind" at all; actually saying it was a bit of a shock.)

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918

 - Posted      Profile for Flubb     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? [/QB]

If I understand Peronal correctly, she was saying that gender is a non-issue when it comes to assessing whether she is a competant teacher or not. This I was not challenging. But the idea that gender is a non-issue when it comes to theology is a bit more problematic as this thread has pointed out, and I've found in my discussions with feminists that they bleed into each other.
Career-wise, it makes very little difference who does what, but move into theological territory, and God appears to have told his spokesmen differently. Why, is another issue.

In terms of whether this is simplistic, well yes, any 4 line paragraph isn't going to be conclusive [Razz] Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes, and the feminism of the 70's was fairly outspoken about the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality, as sexuality wasn't seen as anything significant. Sex has no transcendant meaning, so it makes no difference who you sleep with. They also argued that the difference between the sexes was mostly cultural, and if that is true, what we need is re-education.

And this is where you misinterpret me [Yipee] I'm bouncing off Peronal's point to my own, as I pointed out in the previous post. I also did point it out as a tangent [Smile]

As I come from a non-liturgical denomination, it's a bit tricky to say what I would do if I was in a position to write one, but my theology of men and women and their relationship, and their relationship with God would have to be taken into account. From all that I've read over the years however, it's not as simple as just replacing 'man' with 'personkind'. The creation of the Book of Common Prayer is a testament to the numerous factions that had to be accomodated before anyone was even vaguely happy. If it makes no theological difference, then go ahead, but theology is far more complicated than we imagine, and I'm leery of fiddling too much, conservative that I am.

--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...

Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
God appears to have told his spokesmen differently.

What she said to her spokeswomen might have been different again.

quote:

Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes

What, all of them? Even those semi-mythical lesbian separatists that some people love to hate?

quote:
and the feminism of the 70's was fairly outspoken about the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality

No it wasn't, most of it. That tended to come in later, & where it happened wasn't specifically feminist.

quote:
as sexuality wasn't seen as anything significant.

No, again. What political promotion of homosexuality & bisexuality there was came about precisely because "sexuality" - a new category no-one had ever though of before - was seen as significant.

quote:
Sex has no transcendant meaning, so it makes no difference who you sleep with.

Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to believe that sex has no "transcendant meaning" and yet that it does make a difference who you do it with. In fact I'd say that has been a very common position amongst Jews and later Christians since before the time of Christ.

And far from giving it "transcendant meaning" most of the early Church Fathers and much of mediaeval Christianity thoguht it was positively harmful and got in the way of a relationship with God and therefore had to be severly restricted.

quote:
They also argued that the difference between the sexes was mostly cultural, and if that is true, what we need is re-education.

"The" difference? Which difference? Reproductive, social, intellectual, economic, political? I don't remember anyone arguing that the difference in men's and women's ability to menstruate was learned.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people.

Dear Ruth,

At some point you described your position as "nuanced" (not going to hunt for it - the thread's too long).

Rightly or wrongly, I sense a tension between the liberal "of course I'm not going to force inclusive language on anyone" and the radical "moral imperative to change" aspects of your position.

The quote above is from your radical side. It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war, and that anyone who wills the end should therefore will the means.

Well, I didn't mean it to say there's a war on here. But I do get angry about this sometimes, and I was angry when I wrote that. After all, this is, among many other things, my life we're talking about here.

ETA: Once again, having read Flubb's most recent post, I feel like we're talking to people whose knowledge of feminism has been gleaned entirely from half-remembered media reports from some 30 years ago. This too makes me angry. Please go read six books by feminists writing today before you say another word about what feminists are trying to argue.

[ 13. June 2005, 16:55: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
As I come from a non-liturgical denomination, it's a bit tricky to say what I would do if I was in a position to write one, but my theology of men and women and their relationship, and their relationship with God would have to be taken into account. From all that I've read over the years however, it's not as simple as just replacing 'man' with 'personkind'. The creation of the Book of Common Prayer is a testament to the numerous factions that had to be accomodated before anyone was even vaguely happy. If it makes no theological difference, then go ahead, but theology is far more complicated than we imagine, and I'm leery of fiddling too much, conservative that I am.

Two points -- in the parts of your post I have not quoted, you need to replace "feminists" with "some feminist" or "a few feminists" or, in some cases, "a couple of wingnuts".

And, relating to what I have quoted, the "personkind" way of dealing with language issues is a good 20-25 years out of date, and was rightly ridiculed even then by many people who wanted to deal with sexist language. If you're going to attack -- which may be fair enough -- try to make sure what you're attacking is real, not a caricaturish stereotype.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Many thanks - I would be interested to know. (Given all the discusion we've been having here I nearly stumbled when I got to that point in the service. As a word on the page I hadn't noticed "mankind" at all; actually saying it was a bit of a shock.)

I had a similar experience in Lent 2004, when I tried a version of the draft "Times and Seasons" Way of the Cross service. I had copied text straight from the draft documents and hadn't proof checked them carefully enough. At the very end of the service I found myself saying:

quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed men for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.

The (female) curate looked at me sharply at that point - quite rightly in my opinion! I apologised afterwards and pointed out that if she wanted to spill blood, she should look to the Liturgical Commission, not me.

I'm assuming that the final form of Times and Seasons will have changed the text in question. Can anyone confirm that?

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Once again, having read Flubb's most recent post, I feel like we're talking to people whose knowledge of feminism has been gleaned entirely from half-remembered media reports from some 30 years ago.

Absolutely.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think this thread is an excellent illustration of strident maleists doing their utmost to preserve their status quo and the subjugation of women. The maleist agenda is attempting to return us to the days when women were chattel in a number of insidious ways.

Maleists are doing everything they can to keep women from working outside the home at all. These maleists are working for the day when women are no longer taught to read at allthus completely preventing them from reading the Bible and falling into error. The maleists oppose any form of birth control in any situation whatsoever, and have been avidly working to do away with domestic abuse laws. They’re planning to re-write the marriage ceremony to leave out the bride’s vows because women should be silent in church, so “I do” is an offense against Almighty God. The maleists insist on their male-only clubs and establishments because they need places to go where they can discuss rolling back the advances that have led to societal ills like votes for women and equal pay for equal work. Soon, the maleists will have pushed through legislation allowing daughters to be exposed at birth.

Wow, that sounds a little hysterical and over the top, doesn't it?

[ 13. June 2005, 19:15: Message edited by: Sienna ]

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
IngoB's post makes me realize that I should probably clarify that I'm of the "fidelity to the text" persuasion when it comes to Biblical translation, with explanatory footnotes when needed. <snip> It's in the liturgy I see the need for inclusive language - and the liturgy seems to be where exclusive language is most problematic.

I agree entirely. If the word in the Greek Scripture was "son" -- if indeed it was a word that indicated a male child, and not just because the word "offspring" had grammatical gender, but because a male child was meant, then I want the word translated as "son." Footnotes are good, for clarifying anything that might be misleading.

But where the word doesn't mean a male person -- like the word that means "people as opposed to animals" rather than "men as opposed to women," I don't want it translated mankind, not because I want an inclusive word, but because I want an accurate one. It just blows me a way that Gordon would say he prefers a less accurate translation because it fits his theology better.

In the liturgies, I think gender-neutral language is generally to be preferred for reasons of accuracy as well. But I can see an argument for going with an inclusive term in the liturgy, when a gendered term would be a more accurate translation (child instead of son, for example), because you can't footnote the liturgy. People hear what they hear, and there isn't an opportunity to say, "Well, yes, we said sons, but we meant people."

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Wow, that sounds a little hysterical and over the top, doesn't it?
No Sienna, that sounds perfectly reasonable. [Smiles nervously.] Now just put that meat cleaver down carefully - before anyone gets hurt.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What else did you expect? All feminists are castrating, didn't you know? [Biased]

--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson

Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Eek!] [Ultra confused]

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174

 - Posted      Profile for J. J. Ramsey   Author's homepage   Email J. J. Ramsey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just cross your legs and back away from the computer . . . [Big Grin]

--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.

Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
QUOTE]I had a similar experience in Lent 2004, when I tried a version of the draft "Times and Seasons" Way of the Cross service. I had copied text straight from the draft documents and hadn't proof checked them carefully enough. At the very end of the service I found myself saying:

quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed men for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.

The (female) curate looked at me sharply at that point - quite rightly in my opinion! I apologised afterwards and pointed out that if she wanted to spill blood, she should look to the Liturgical Commission, not me.

I'm assuming that the final form of Times and Seasons will have changed the text in question. Can anyone confirm that?

Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.

--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.

Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, she hasn't. It's really jarring to be going along absorbing the power and majesty of the liturgy and then be brought up short because you find you've been written right out of things.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It just blows me a way that Gordon would say he prefers a less accurate translation because it fits his theology better.

Well, consider yourself unblown. Accuracy in translation is extremely important. I've already suggested that I think "sons" is an accurate translation of "huios", and "man" is an accurate translation of "'adam". I understand the counter-arguments and think the balance remains in favour of the current language used by most modern English translations, with the exception of the NRSV and the TNIV. The RSV, ESV, TEV, NIV remain widely used English translations which would favour the view that I've been putting. Of these, the ESV is more important than NRSV and TNIV, neither of which have yet proven that they will be lasting in their impact.

The arguments for de-gendering the language of our translations remains highly contested by professional translators and those arguing for change have not managed to persuade the majority.

By the way, at no stage would I argue for a return to the AV (that is to say, the KJV), despite the beauty of its language. It is based on less accurate original texts and is close to incomprehensible for anyone who lacks a tertiary education.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Of these, the ESV is more important than NRSV and TNIV, neither of which have yet proven that they will be lasting in their impact.

Sorry, I think I meant to say that the ESV is more 'recent'. The NRSV hasn't sunk without a trace, but it would be fair to say that a major reason for its release, the use of de-gendered language where possible, doesn't seem to have been sufficient to persuade many people. The TNIV seems to be doing better in some circles, but has also benefitted from an extensive marketing campaign. The ESV has been independently published by a small company in the US and has achieved surprising popularity in just a few years. It is based on the old RV/RSV with some improvements, and more foreshadowed for subsequent editions.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peronel

The typo slayer
# 569

 - Posted      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:


The arguments for de-gendering the language of our translations remains highly contested by professional translators and those arguing for change have not managed to persuade the majority.

I don't think anyone on this thread has been argueing for wholescale degendering of the bible. What we have been argueing is that today's liturgy and hymns should be written using gender inclusive language, because that best reflects how people speak and understand today.

What people have also been arguing is that is worth considering updating 'old' liturgy - especially the creed, the core statement of what we believe - because, as language has evolved, gender exclusive language means something different from what was originally intended. MOst have argued that, with old hymns, the damage to valued and loved poetry outweighs the gain in clarity.

So at best you're misunderstanding what a bunch of people have repeatedly said; at worst you're deliberately setting up a straw man in order to misrepresent the position of those who disagree with you.


quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.

Try as I might, I can't read that passage in a way which applies to me. It talks about Christ, who ransomed men for God. A wonderful image, if you're a man. I'm not. So at best what this message conveys to me is that - by virtue of my gender - I'm an afterthought; at worst it implies that only men are ransomed so - logically - I am not. Either way, the message it conveys is profoundly excluding.

To get a sense of the disconnect try reading the passage thus:

quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed women for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.

Do you feel excluded? If so, you can maybe appreciate how that passage - beautiful as it is - reads to me.

Peronel

--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.

Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just an observation about something that's been said earlier on this thread about younger people and how they will fail to understand non-inclusive language [BTW, I recognise that others have asked me some questions I've not yet responded to, and just to let you know that I'm formulating my replies. I'm not deliberately ignoring you!].

I preach fairly often for a university church that's been going for about 18 months now. The question of sex roles is fairly low priority in our regular preaching, in fact to be honest I don't think it's been addressed directly by anyone in the 18 months that the church has been in operation. I tend to use traditional language (so-called 'non-inclusive') in my preaching, not because I feel myself to be making a point, I just do.

Most of those who attend, from a variety of cultural backgrounds (Anglo-Aussie, Asian, Buddhist...) are aged between 18 and 25, mainly female [it's a church attached to a school of health sciences]. No-one in the 18 months has complained about the way language has been used. Note it's not just 'cos I'm the big scary preacher. There is plenty of opportunity to comment to others, or to drop in an anonymous comment slip.

It's not a big point I'm making here, just that in a sample of highly intelligent and educated young churchgoers from a variety of backgrounds (but mainly female), the whole question of inclusive language just doesn't seem to be on the radar.

I personally would agree with them, that I don't think it is an issue that warrants the attention it gets in some circles.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.

Let me explain a little....

I first encountered inclusive language liturgy at theological college. When I went there, it all seemed to me to be a bit OTT and I disliked the way that transgressions were jumped on heavily. BUT - when I went back home after the first year and went back to non-inclusive liturgy, I was surprised at what an impact it made on me. It was like being slapped across the face - and I'm a bloke!

When you have moved to inclusive language and got completely accustomed to it, encountering a random "men" really does stick out like a very sore thumb. It's nigh on impossible to ignore it - believe me. If that is what it does to me, just imagine how it feels for a woman to be in that position.

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's not a big point I'm making here, just that in a sample of highly intelligent and educated young churchgoers from a variety of backgrounds (but mainly female), the whole question of inclusive language just doesn't seem to be on the radar.

Sure, maybe they just have other things to care about. For the umpteenth time, not all women want the same thing at the same time.

Out of curiosity, have they voiced any complaints at all about anything? If they've made critical comments about other things, your statement about their apparently not caring about inclusive language has more force. You should also consider the possibility that they've just made allowances for church being weird and different from the rest of the world.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  16  17  18 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools