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 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  16  17  18 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
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:
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.

I see. In which case the "could" needs to be nuanced -- he's saying you "can't" be a queen, which is a completely different sort of "cannot" than you can't be a minister/priest/whatever. The former because there are intrinsic things about queendom which you lack (namely, bloodline); the latter merely because of your gender.

I apologize my masculine mind was so slow in getting your point!

Regarding youth: My 15yo stepson had two of his schoolmates over this weekend to play Yu-Gi-Oh or one of those card games. One was female and one was male. The female responded to something he showed her (a "deck" I believe is the term) with the phrase, "Every card known to man."

I considered asking her if females consistently are aware of a different set of cards than males are, but decided it were better to let it go.

I wonder if she even thought about how her own speech excluded her from the class of knowers-about-cards? Either that or, being of the rather geeky persuation, and thus presumably a little smarter than your average 11th grader, perhaps she knew enough about the English language to know she wasn't? [Razz]

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | 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 Nicodemia:
What is a "great translation" then? Or are we back at the "KJV-only" view?

Since I'm not from an Anglo-Saxon background, I have no emotions invested in the KJV. And concerning my other background, it would be "(Challoner-)Douay-Rheims-only" anyway. But clearly both cannot be called "great translations" anymore, since we know that they themselves are based on a far from perfect translation (the old Vulgate). Further, I've heard comments that even if we approve of the old Vulgate, then those two bibles are not great translations of the Latin (one of the reasons why there was an official re-translation by Ronald Knox). I own neither, although I may buy a (C)DR for historic interest one day.

I'm actually not a big bible translation expert. But when I looked for an English bible, I did look around for reviews to find out what would fit my preferences. I currently use the RSV-CE and New Jerusalem Bible, in German I would use the Herder translation or the Pattloch bible (Hamp, Kürzinger, Stenzel). I'm also a proud owner of a 1914 Allioli/Arndt Latin-German parallel bible, which is an excellent translation of the old Vulgate with commentary. I've been thinking of buying a REB with Apocrypha. I hope this sort of puts me on the map, without making big claims about knowing what the "best" translation is.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
And is not it better to read "The Message" than no Bible?

Yes.

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
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?

Well, I was more thinking of "The Message" plus "Good News Bible" plus "New Living Translation" plus perhaps (though with less problems) "(Today's) New International Version"...

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A list might include: ...

ken, I perfectly agree with the content of your list, including the (tentative) answers you give.

--------------------
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 
John: The 'personkind' wasn't actually a studied response, but the first thing that popped into my head, as I was talking with a woman this week at a wedding in a lovely anglican church (female vicar and all) who argued that she much preferred 'personkind' than 'mankind'. My apologies if this came across as a tar-brush.

RuthW - My contention is that much of the current situation is due to what happened before (surprise!). While what I've been saying may not be cutting edge, they are still not dead horses for all of us, even if some would like them to be [Smile] Currently I've been reading Grudem (2004), Kemp and Squires (1997) Fiorenza (1984) Holloway (1991) Schroer and Bietenhard (2003) Carson (1998) and a number of others sitting on my shelf on the feminist/inclusive language debate, as it's not one i'm horrendously familiar with as some have so kindly pointed out. I also read de Beauvoir, Greer, Friedan, Steinem, Paglia, and a host of lesser knowns years ago, although I'm told, they are fairly old school by today's standards. They also set the scene (for the most part) for what would happen next, so I count them as fairly important. If you would like to suggest any more, I'll have a look to see if I could get hold of them.

Ken:
quote:
(me)
Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes

quote:
(You) What, all of them? Even those semi-mythical lesbian separatists that some people love to hate?

You are correct. Not all of them, some of them. Much of the Radical feminist movement is comprised of them. The issue to me is not how accepted these second wave spinoffs are (even by the mainstream feminist movement), but the effect they caused and cause. They still exist, they still have an effect on studies (even if still fairly small).

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

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

www.now.org was arguing for it, and argues for it. It may not be specifically a feminist concern, but I'm was positing that it was due in part to the feminist movement that these issues were raised.

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

quote:
(You) 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.

I think it is. So do some other people. We have no common ground here. Moot.

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

quote:
(You)"The" difference? Which difference? Reproductive, social, intellectual, economic, political?

Buggrit, sorry, that's my bad: should read 'the differences between the sexes was mostly socialised'.

Anyway, as I said, I was wandering off on a tangent and have no desire to get further involved in what was just a passing comment. I wasn't trying to inculcate a new level of opprobrium for myself [Yipee]

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

Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 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 RuthW:
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.



I've heard and understood this. It wasn't really the point I was addressing. A number of people (not you, I believe) have implied or stated on this thread that anyone under the age of 30 finds the use of non-inclusive language incomprehensible. I'm just saying that among the 18-25 y.o. educated elite women at my 18 month old church, that assertion is not true.


quote:
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.
They are not 'complaining' people, but they are highly critical people —if you see the distinction I am making. They will pick up errors of logic in my sermon with great rapidity and will not hesitate to ask detailed questions about this both publicly and privately. Nicely though, so that I don't notice the bleeding from the gracious but logically irrefutable bitemarks for several hours. They are smarter than I am.

--------------------
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
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Regarding youth: My 15yo stepson had two of his schoolmates over this weekend to play Yu-Gi-Oh or one of those card games. One was female and one was male. The female responded to something he showed her (a "deck" I believe is the term) with the phrase, "Every card known to man."

I considered asking her if females consistently are aware of a different set of cards than males are, but decided it were better to let it go.

I wonder if she even thought about how her own speech excluded her from the class of knowers-about-cards? Either that or, being of the rather geeky persuation, and thus presumably a little smarter than your average 11th grader, perhaps she knew enough about the English language to know she wasn't? [Razz]

Will people please stop using the argument that some women don't notice/don't have a problem with/use themselves non-inclusive language to prove some sort of point.

Surely the question is: some people are indeed hugely offended and excluded. Some perhaps so much that it stops them understanding the gospel. What could/should we do about this?

Gordon: a slight point. The NRSV is now the proscribed text for theology undergraduates at Oxford, and several other English universities, so it should be making its mark amongst theologians, at least.

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 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 xSx:

Gordon: a slight point. The NRSV is now the proscribed text for theology undergraduates at Oxford, and several other English universities, so it should be making its mark amongst theologians, at least.

That is interesting information, and it matches what I think I heard a few years ago, so I guess this is not a recent policy. When I left Melbourne they were recommending the NRSV (mid-late 90s) at Ridley College, the major Anglican evangelical college down there. Moore College in Sydney (Anglican, conservative evangelical) makes no formal recommendation, but the majority of students I think use NIV or ESV, similarly
Mary Andrews College .

(By the way, and simply as a matter of interest, in 2004 there were 60 female students studying theology fulltime at Moore; numbers of both men and women have increased substantially over the last decade and are projected to continue growing)

--------------------
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
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

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

...The NRSV is now the proscribed text ... so it should be making its mark ...

That is interesting information, and it matches what I think I heard a few years ago...
prescribed, not proscribed. Sheesh! it's a thread about language, isn't it?

If it were proscribed, that would reduce its mark significantly.

BTW, NRSV has been the standard for Canadian Anglican churches for a number of years. It's not my favorite, as I find the word choice sometimes stilted and the rhythm rather leaden.

(If anyone wants to attack inclusive language on esthetic grounds, some of it - "personkind" - is a sitting duck.)

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, I've been following this for a while now, but lessee if I've got the argument pretty much to rights:

Is inclusive language really necessary?

No, but it's nice sometimes.


Questions? Comments? Other gratuitious Buffy references?

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 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 
Spiffy, are you arguing that sexism is like a vampire and inclusive language like a stake? Hmmmm, you may be on to something.

--------------------
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
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 xSx:
Surely the question is: some people are indeed hugely offended and excluded. Some perhaps so much that it stops them understanding the gospel. What could/should we do about this?

Recognise that this is what they feel without either approving or disapproving ?

Change, where we can do so without causing offence to those who are attached to the "poetry" of traditional language ?

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
Is inclusive language really necessary?

No, but it's nice sometimes.

If by that you mean "considerate in certain situations", then yes.

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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just coming back to some questions and comments.

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Your response to Sine's question about your daughters was a moving testimony to your love and care for them, but it didn't really address his question.

Uhm, well, yes. I used the same technique in high school debate tournaments. That and holding up blank index cards while making up fake quotes to cream an opponent.

So I recognized Gordon's move. It's called Changing The Subject.

“It is a wicked and perverse generation that seek a Sine”. Sine, I was not changing the subject, I was attempting to place the subject of frustrated desire in the midst of the context of life in a fallen world. But if you look further down this post, I have a bit of a go at the sort of answer that you appear to be looking for.


quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Your response to Sine's question about your daughters was a moving testimony to your love and care for them, but it didn't really address his question. So, as respectfully as possible, let me ask for an answer for a more specific question. What would you do if your adult daughter came to tell you that God had called her to the ordained priesthood?

As an ordained (Anglican) priest, I don’t believe that a call to the ordained priesthood is essential. I don’t even know if it is usual. I wasn’t called. The Bible speaks of ‘call’; generally to be a Christian and sometimes to be an apostle, but I have difficulty seeing that what we call an ‘ordained priest’ matches up naturally to any of the New Testament categories of leadership. That said, I don’t think it is wrong to be ordained (obviously); but it is an idea that seems to include a number of leadership functions that are not unique to one office in the New Testament—if indeed we can even speak of tightly defined leadership offices in the NT, and I somehow doubt that we can.

Also, as someone working with evangelical presuppositions, the New Testament teaching about leadership (including elders/ presbyters/ deacons/ teachers/ apostles/ pastor-teachers/prophets/ etc.) looms fairly large in my thinking. A priest may perform all or some of these functions, occasionally they may perform none of them eg. they may end up as an administrator in diocesan head office, aka a bishop or archdeacon. Most priestly functions (including the administration of the sacraments) seem to me activities that a woman should, if able on other grounds, be able to perform with no theological obstacle.

So if one of my daughters were to come and say what you said, I would be needing to ask all sorts of questions about what she actually meant. What is a ‘call’? How does she know she is ‘called’? Why, if it is not something the Bible lends its authority to, does she feel compelled to obey this ‘call’? What exactly does she see herself being ‘called’ to? Teacing? Hospital visitation? School chaplaincy? I’m not trying to be awkward, it’s just that the basic assumptions with which we approach the questions of ‘call’, ‘priesthood’ and even ‘ordination’ are probably so contrasting that it is difficult not to be talking at cross-purposes.

However in an effort to avoid being gently baked, boiled and basted by Sine for dodging the question yet again: I think I would be trying to work out exactly what it was that my daughter wanted to do, and why. Then I would be talking to her about questions of character and ability. I believe that anything that a man can do in the church, a woman can do, with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder (which I would be arguing on the basis of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11). But that wouldn’t stop her from teaching in other contexts or exercising leadership, and if she wanted to, and had the ability and character and the Christian maturity, I would be absolutely delighted and would encourage her in whatever way I could.

As for ordination to the priesthood, I am not even sure if men should be seeking this as an essential prerequisite of corequisite of Christian ministry. I’m a Protestant—I believe in the priesthood of all believers. So any argument I might offer for or against what we Anglicans call ‘priestly orders’ would be lukewarm, and would revolve around fairly mundane and pragmatic questions like security of employment, career path, organisational support, superannuation, long service leave and so forth. Providing it didn’t necessarily entail leadership or teaching of mixed congregations or sole senior eldership, I can’t see why it should be a problem. But generally when people speak of priesting, they assume those activities as part of the package, so I would explain why I thought such a move might be unwise.

I hope that doesn’t all sound too evasive, it’s not meant to be.

quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You are ontologically equal to HM the Queen of Australia. For reasons of birth and heredity, you will never be Queen (unless I am making wrong assumptions about who you are based on your profile). Does the existence of a hereditary monarchy cause you to feel marginalised and dispossessed?

To say that I can't be queen or that you can't give birth is to deny us the ability to do things that we already know we can't do.

I have no idea where you stand on female pilots, so I'm going to use it as an example because it saves on picking up accidental baggage that may occur if I used "priest" or somesuch that you've spoken about before. It might be that you do think women can be pilots, but the point will still stand.

Let's pretend I am really good at numbers, and really good at physics, and really good at staying calm in a crisis, and really good at talking in a competant, in-control and calming way over an intercom, and I want to be a pilot. Let's also say that you don't believe women can be pilots and so you tell me I can't be a pilot. You've just told me, without knowing me or any of my abilities, that I can't be a pilot, when I know full well, without doubt, that I could. Even if I didn't want to be one, it would still be galling to be told I couldn't when I know I couldn't.

That's a far cry from you being told you can't give birth, because you know fine well you never could. That's why one is controversial and the other isn't. You can do anything you have the ability to do. According to you, I can't, and should only do things I have no ability to do, bearing in mind I'm rather good at maths and have the maternal instincts of a hungry dingo.

The pilot example is so difficult for me to envisage that I am not even sure I can begin to answer. Why wouldn’t I believe women can be pilots? It’s a bit like suddenly discovering that God wants all people to wear red hats with pom-poms at Christmas time. I can imagine myself thinking it, I suppose, but so far is it from any biblical principle or what I know of the character of God as revealed in Scripture that it is hard to begin to think how I might even mount an argument for it.

The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).

[Hence the Queen example. Most of us have the ability to be Queen; it’s very hard to see how we couldn’t. Most of us, for reasons of birth, never can be. Actually, even those who have the ability to be President of the US can never be, for reasons of birth. Ability is not the issue in these cases either]

--------------------
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 
quote:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains.
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.

By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon,
quote:
...women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men...
Out of curiosity, how far do you go with this belief? As a man, would you boycott the writings of (for example) St Teresa of Ávila, St Hildegard of Bingen or St Julian of Norwich? If not, why not?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 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 
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike. If this principle were applied across the board, you would have no female lecturers in universities, no women running large companies, and no female Prime Ministers or Presidents (talk of Thatcher would be a distraction here). If gender really means that women should not hold such positions within the Church, why is it different outside?

I've never met anyone who would argue that this priciple holds true for the world as a whole - is the Ship going to surprise me again?

(BTW I agree with the consensus that has emerged over Bible translation. If you want to do detailed study you want a version that reflects the original text as closely as possible, with copious footnotes on nuance, unless you can go back to the original Hebrew and Greek. For that kind of work the RSV would be my preferred starting point. I have used the NRSV and didn't like it all either for serious study or as a text to read. Liturgy is a very different matter, as the relationship you have with it is not normally of that academic nature.)

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | 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 Henry Troup:
prescribed, not proscribed. Sheesh! it's a thread about language, isn't it?

If it were proscribed, that would reduce its mark significantly.

Actually if it were proscribed at universities it would probably be much more widely read, students being what students are.

[ 14. June 2005, 15:14: Message edited by: ken ]

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  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 Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).

Sadly, a pile of crap is a pile of crap in any language. I've never really understood why people feel that the personal opinion of Paul is 'the Word of God'. I recognise your right to maintain this position, but I'm losing the struggle to respect 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
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).

Oh Gordon, I am pleased to help you out with this one. And do I really need to state my position is one of St. Paul was a good guy, but he ain't no Jesus, and cleverly glossed over the other Creation story what had men and women created at the same time?

11 A man should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a man to teach or to have authority over a woman; he must be silent.

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Spiffy - spiffing!!

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for ordination to the priesthood, I am not even sure if men should be seeking this as an essential prerequisite of corequisite of Christian ministry. I?m a Protestant?I believe in the priesthood of all believers.

Careful here... the priesthood of all believers is a participation of the whole church in the priesthood of Christ. Which is of course a sacrificial priesthood connected to the old Temple priesthood - and before that to the priesthood every patriarch excercised in his own household. We can easily make Biblical arguments for that sacrificial priesthood being a male province - as it remains, for it belongs to Jesus Christ and we only reminin in it as we remain in him.

The priesthood we ordain individual people to is eldership within the church - a human office (though perhaps instituted by Jesus Christ, and certainly by the Apostles). And it is much the same office as that of, say, a Methodist or Baptist minister. The biblical equivalents to it are not temple priests but the elders of the synagogue.

If you are a good Sydney Protestant you ought not to be mixing them up, because that leads to the idea that Christian priesthood is an ontological change of state, rather than a role or an office or a function. And that way lies Rome...

quote:

The pilot example is so difficult for me to envisage that I am not even sure I can begin to answer. Why wouldn?t I believe women can be pilots? It?s a bit like suddenly discovering that God wants all people to wear red hats with pom-poms at Christmas time. I can imagine myself thinking it, I suppose, but so far is it from any biblical principle or what I know of the character of God as revealed in Scripture that it is hard to begin to think how I might even mount an argument for it.

But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...

quote:

The key to understanding why women shouldn?t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn?t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order

Except that that doesn't seem obvious to many of us either from Scripture or from our personal experience

quote:

as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains.

Does it?

I'd try to read it literally.

quote:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

So perhaps should we all

quote:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Nor did he. Nor does the Archbishop of Sydney, or the Pope. But God does, at least sometimes, because he called Deborah to judge Israel. And raised up many women to be prophets, in old and new testament times (& maybe since). So even if in general, on the whole, most of the time, it is God's will that men are in charge and women subordinate we cannot say of any particular woman who claims to be called to eldership "go away, you must have made a mistake, God doesn't do that" because we know that God, at least sometimes, does.

quote:

(BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).

I am not at all sure what the next bit means at all, inclusive or not. Neither are most translators, as nearly every version I've seen explains in footnotes.

quote:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing ? if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Apparently "saved through childbearing" has the same ambiguity in Greek as it does in English (even ignoring the possibility that it could be metaphorical). And are we to understand that "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" institutes salvation through works for women?

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  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 The Wanderer:
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike. If this principle were applied across the board, you would have no female lecturers in universities, no women running large companies, and no female Prime Ministers or Presidents (talk of Thatcher would be a distraction here). If gender really means that women should not hold such positions within the Church, why is it different outside?

I've never met anyone who would argue that this priciple holds true for the world as a whole - is the Ship going to surprise me again?


I think you could certainly argue that this should apply to the ship.

We have female leaders (Erin, RuthW, Viola) and women are allowed to preach/argue/yell/rant/pray with the best of them. And *gasp* there are vulnerable men reading who might be corrupted by us, as Eve corrupted Adam.

So I wonder why Gordon is still participating in a community that - riddled as it is with vocal women - is obviously beyond the theological pale. Maybe we can make him disappear in a fit of indignation, much in the manner of Elder Moroni and his underwear.

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
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 The Wanderer:
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike.

As the creator of the world, God knows how we were made to function best and that includes in terms of sexual behaviour. For Christians, to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must. For non-Chrisitans, it is clearly benefical for them to live in accordsnce with how their creator made them but its not a matter of compulsion. How would that work anyway? But to live that way is supreme common sense
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).

Sadly, a pile of crap is a pile of crap in any language. I've never really understood why people feel that the personal opinion of Paul is 'the Word of God'. I recognise your right to maintain this position, but I'm losing the struggle to respect it.
Sad how you feel the need to resort to abuse rather than putting up a coherent argument. It seems to me that if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God then anything is up for grabs and this becomes a meaningless argument without any real reference points.

--------------------
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
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:

quote:
quote:
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike.
As the creator of the world, God knows how we were made to function best and that includes in terms of sexual behaviour. For Christians, to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must. For non-Chrisitans, it is clearly benefical for them to live in accordsnce with how their creator made them but its not a matter of compulsion. How would that work anyway? But to live that way is supreme common sense
Oh dear. I'm doing a Ph.D at the moment and my supervisor is female. Should I give her the old heave-ho and insist they find me a bloke on the grounds that "to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must" and "supreme common sense"? [Confused] I realise that the heathen in their blindness put up with such iniquity on the grounds that what matters is producing a decent piece of research at the end of the day but should I let my actions be determined by such carnal considerations? Should I make a stand for Gospel values or keep my head down and wait until the Republic of Gilead seizes power?

Yours aye,

Confused of Gormenghast.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 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 The Undiscovered Country:
Sad how you feel the need to resort to abuse rather than putting up a coherent argument. It seems to me that if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God then anything is up for grabs and this becomes a meaningless argument without any real reference points.

Either you believe that the Bible is 'the word of God' or you believe it's the words of men who were occasionally / always / often mistaken. These are a priori assumptions. You can't really argue it one way or the other because, as you say, there are no reference points in that area.

But, to return to the original - the argument being put forward now, it seems, by many 'traditionalist' male posters is that non-inclusive language is, in fact, OK, because actually men are of higher status than women. As ordered by God. As it says in the Bible. That's very different from the earlier arguments: "of course everyone knows we're all equals now, so non-inclusive language does no harm. Why do you nasty aggressive feminists have to make such a fuss about such a small matter?" At least that line of 'reasoning' (if that's what it can be called) has been shown to be completely phoney.

[ 14. June 2005, 20:44: Message edited by: Qlib ]

--------------------
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 
Dear Confused of Gormenghast:

Any school with a PhD program that would allow women to supervise male Ph.D. candidates is of the devil. The only sure bet for the safety of your soul is to drop out entirely, as your research has been tainted anyway.

On a more serious note, I'm wondering, TUC, if you apply these principles in your daily life. Would you take a class from a woman? Would you take a job where you had a female boss? Would you consider yourself exempt from a legal verdict if rendered by a woman judge because she shouldn't have authority over you? If not, how do you justify your rejection of a way of life that is "supreme common sense"?

--------------------
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
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:
But, to return to the original - the argument being put forward now, it seems, by many 'traditionalist' male posters is that non-inclusive language is, in fact, OK, because actually men are of higher status than women. As ordered by God.

I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters. Ok, I'm not a traditionalist male poster, but I was earlier being fairly conservative on the changing of traditional language in all circumstances and I strongly, completely and utterly disagree with Gordon on this one. In fact, he's pushing me more towards inclusivist langauge. But I like the word mankind and I don't feel excluded by it!

Carys

--------------------
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
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 Ricardus:
Gordon,
quote:
...women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men...
Out of curiosity, how far do you go with this belief? As a man, would you boycott the writings of (for example) St Teresa of Ávila, St Hildegard of Bingen or St Julian of Norwich? If not, why not?
No I'd read all those folks. And Confused of Gormenghast can keep his supervisor AFAIC. All these extrapolations are unnecessary. Women can be monarchs, presidents, CEOs, bishops. Why not? Aren't you all just popping up said extrapolations in order to make the position that I actually uphold seem even more foolish in the eyes of the world than it actually is? Unless you happen to be the government, why introduce restrictions where the Bible introduces none? Priscilla and Aquila discipled Apollos. Next you'll be telling me that I think that's wrong.

I have limited computer access today so I may just come back in several hours and learn from your ingenious reconstructions what else it is that I'm supposed to believe. This will make the job of trying to think through my position a great deal easier, as you will have done most of the hard work for me.

Whether or not I will agree with the new me, as revealed by these boards, is an entirely different question.

--------------------
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
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147

 - Posted      Profile for Demas*     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For what it's worth, making Ginga Queen of England is a small matter of changing the Act of Settlement 1701.

We long ago gave up the idea that Monarchs are inherently special.

Gordon: Is preaching before men the only thing that both men and women are physically and mentally capable of doing but God forbids women from doing? Or are there others?

What do you read "having authority over men" as meaning?

[ 15. June 2005, 00:55: Message edited by: Demas ]

--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)

Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91

 - Posted      Profile for HoosierNan   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I was a kid and going to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the church needed a teacher for high school Sunday School. Finally, my mother said she would do it. The powers-that-be told her that she could not do that because all the members of that class were confirmed, so they were all adults in the eyes of the church. Teaching that class would be "having authority over men," meaning 14- to 17-year-old boys.

She told them where to get off and has not volunteered in any church function since then. That was 30 years ago. Just think of all the lost volunteer time that has cost her congregations over the years . . . .

Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
When I was a kid and going to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the church needed a teacher for high school Sunday School.....

HE-hehehehehe. [Snigger] [Devil] Finally, a chance to feel Evil.

I'm an LCMS woman teaching confirmation class, no less. [Devil] [Devil] [Devil]

Oh, and did I say I wrote the sermons?

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All these extrapolations are unnecessary. Women can be monarchs, presidents, CEOs, bishops. Why not? Aren't you all just popping up said extrapolations in order to make the position that I actually uphold seem even more foolish in the eyes of the world than it actually is?

No, we're trying to point out that your position is inconsistent.

Flubb: It doesn't sound as if you need reading suggestions from me. Given your reading list, though, I'm surprised at your previous caricature of feminism. Where on its website is NOW going on about "the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality"? I couldn't find anything of the sort. That NOW is against discrimination against bisexuals and homosexuals is of course entirely appropriate and not at all inculcating the wonders of anything.

Gordon: Glad to hear that your female parishioners are not shrinking violets. (You may thank feminists that they are getting a university education.)

Spiffy: I disagree with the idea that inclusive language is merely nice. Sometimes it is necessary.

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

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would love to agree that you are an evil, evil woman, Lamb Chopped, but sadly I'd have to say you may be still toeing the line in a way nitpickers can appreciate.
  • Since you are teaching the unconfirmed, technically you are teaching infants in Christ so even that 70 year old geezer who wandered in from whatever Godforsaken corner of the Kingdom he started from, I guess he is still technically not an adult male in Christ according to LCMS.
  • And unless you get to preach the sermons you still don't hold authority over men in your church.
Tcha. [Disappointed] You'll just have to try harder to be a reprobate.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  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 Sienna:
Dear Confused of Gormenghast:

Any school with a PhD program that would allow women to supervise male Ph.D. candidates is of the devil. The only sure bet for the safety of your soul is to drop out entirely, as your research has been tainted anyway.

On a more serious note, I'm wondering, TUC, if you apply these principles in your daily life. Would you take a class from a woman? Would you take a job where you had a female boss? Would you consider yourself exempt from a legal verdict if rendered by a woman judge because she shouldn't have authority over you? If not, how do you justify your rejection of a way of life that is "supreme common sense"?

The point I was I was answering was the one in relation to sexual relationships. I was not suggesting that women could not be managers/leaders etc. in non-church settings. The only biblical restriction I see on women in leadership in the church relates to having formal eldership roles and teaching on core foundational doctrinal issues. Those are not issues that are likely to arise in non-church settings.

--------------------
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
Siena

Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574

 - Posted      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, I think most of the extrapolations (and certainly Confused in Gormenghast's agony aunt question) were in response to TUC's post, not yours.

But I do think it's legitimate to inquire about the extent to which a belief that women are to be subordinate in marriage and in church as part of God's divine order is applied by those holding that belief in non-marital and non-church settings.

I think we can all agree that we're called to apply our ethics and principles in all parts of our life, not just marriage or our church (which is something to be thankful for, I suppose). For example, I'm supposed to love my neighbor in the next cubicle as well as my neighbor in the pew. So, how do your beliefs about issues of gender and authority play out in the office, school, neighborhood watch, etc.? Or do you believe that Paul's comments apply only within marriage and a faith community, and aren't for application in other spheres of life? That seems to create its own different set of problems.

How do you draw a distinction between not allowing a woman to teach men from the pulpit or in a classroom but allowing a woman to instruct men from the printed page? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm trying to understand how a written explanation of doctrine is not "teaching" when the spoken explanation of that doctrine would be. I'm getting a sense the answer may be in your use of the word "discipled" as distinct from "teaching" but could you unpack that for me? I see an awful amount of overlap between the two. Or perhaps I'm missing your point entirely....

I'm not trying to create a "new you" or make you look ridiculous (but I will cop to making fun of Flubb's post on feminism being responsible for inculcating the wonders of homosexuality, etc.) I'm really trying to understand how your theology with respect to gender relations plays out in real life.

--------------------
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
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 Sienna:

I think we can all agree that we're called to apply our ethics and principles in all parts of our life, not just marriage or our church (which is something to be thankful for, I suppose). For example, I'm supposed to love my neighbor in the next cubicle as well as my neighbor in the pew. So, how do your beliefs about issues of gender and authority play out in the office, school, neighborhood watch, etc.? Or do you believe that Paul's comments apply only within marriage and a faith community, and aren't for application in other spheres of life? That seems to create its own different set of problems.

How do you draw a distinction between not allowing a woman to teach men from the pulpit or in a classroom but allowing a woman to instruct men from the printed page? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm trying to understand how a written explanation of doctrine is not "teaching" when the spoken explanation of that doctrine would be. I'm getting a sense the answer may be in your use of the word "discipled" as distinct from "teaching" but could you unpack that for me?

As far as I can see, the speciific prohibitions against women teaching are made in congregational contexts and refer to public teaching.

Your point is well made, ie that the principles we are discussing ought to be applied in other contexts and not hermetically sealed into the one setting.

But in saying this, we also have to do justice to the instances in Scripture where clearly women are given leadership or teaching roles: Priscilla (alongside Aquila, her husband), Deborah (OT Judge), Lemuel's mother in the book of Proverbs, older women teaching younger women ... a number of instances, in other words, where women not only teach and/or lead lead but seem to be actively encouraged to do so. in 1 Corinthians 14 women prophesy.

I am not saying that each and every one of these examples is clear to us, either as to what exactly was going on (eg what is 'prophecy'?) or as to the application. But equally, I wouldn't be wanting to write those passages off as unusual or exceptional, although the Deborah story has some very odd aspects to it. I am saying those passages need to be weighed seriously. (Discussion as to specific meaning is probably for another thread or for Kerygmania).

Hence the apparent lack of consistency in what I am suggesting the application of Scripture should be to the question of what contexts women are free to teach in. I want to argue strongly against a legalistic universal solution (eg something like "you may teach males until the age of 18, or if they're confirmed until they're 15" just doesn't cut it for me, even though one particular church may adopt this as their practice), and argue instead for the principle of Christian liberty. "All things are lawful for me" is a Christian principle of liberty stated in 1 Corinthians 6:12. It is modified by understanding how such a principle might be applied in a way that is "beneficial". But it's not wise to make universal rules about specific application where the Bible makes none.

--------------------
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
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters.

No, neither would I. There are at least three others posting on this thread. One, two, three, many, as Pratchett's trolls might say. They are doing their best to cut the middle ground out from under the feet of people like you and Callan. FWIW I don't have a problem with 'mankind' either and I love the beauty of the BCP. I just can't say the words any more - and that's not entirely because of exclusive language, though it is a part of it.

I think we now need to start talking about in what ways inclusive language might be necessary. Several of the MTs (male traditionalists) have talked about how all the 'difficulties' (which, of course, they don't really see as difficulties) can be got around by proper understanding, acquired through diligent study. Although that in itself is questionable, I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.

Yes. And similarly for the exploration of inconsistencies. Not just for the uncommitted outside the church, but for young people growing up in the church who may be exploring commitment. "Why" questions are important.

Remember the Seven Last Words of the Church.

"WE'VE NEVER DONE IT THIS WAY BEFORE".

Why shouldn't the Spirit of God be in the questioning of the young and the uncommitted?

--------------------
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
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 Carys:
I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters.

No, neither would I. There are at least three others posting on this thread. One, two, three, many, as Pratchett's trolls might say.
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention.

Carys

--------------------
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
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 see, the speciific prohibitions against women teaching are made in congregational contexts and refer to public teaching.

I find this appeal to "context" interesting. Which context is allowable and which isn't?

Concerning the issue of St Paul's references to women teaching and having authority over men, one context is what Paul is writing about in the specific letter. Another context is what he writes elsewhere. Yet another context is the whole NT canon (and even the OT - although that throws up considerable difficulties in my opinion).

A still wider context is that of the society of the time and the assumptions and character of Paul himself as a Jew living in a specific time. This context (ISTM) is that he instinctively saw women in leadership as being plain wrong. If we understand him in this context, why cannot we say something along the lines of "In that time and place, his comments were understandable. However, we have moved on since then in our understanding - and because we now have a different context, it is perfectly legitimate to come to different conclusions"

So I think your appeal to context is a very slippery slope - for it is pretty much the same appeal that most of those in favour of women in leadership would take.

(BTW - I'm still not convinced by your appeal to context anyway in this matter. Paul's argument is not that women are OK to teach and have authority as long as it's not in the Church. His argument is that women in positions of such authority is just plain wrong and unnatural)

--------------------
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 Carys:
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention?

Well, I would include Flubb and Russ in this group.

--------------------
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
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 Qlib:
I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.

There may be individuals for whom this argument works, but as a generalization it fails dismally, at least according to Australian figures. Australia-wide, the churches that are growing are biblically conservative and/or pentecostal. The churches that are shrinking are liberal. Generally speaking it is the conservative, growing parishes that will use traditional language, and the liberal shrinking ones that insist on inclusive language.

Over the last 30 years I have been associated with many churches in Sydney and Melbourne. The fastest growing in terms of evangelistic growth were university congregations where both theology and language were conservative. The church plant I am currently involved in has seen individuals becoming Christians.

I actually don't know of any growing liberal churches in Sydney. I am sure they are there but they don't really register in the consciousness of the city.

--------------------
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 
My questions to Gordon seem to have got lost - so I'll ask them again!

quote:
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.

By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!


And The Undiscovered Country said:

quote:
The point I was I was answering was the one in relation to sexual relationships. I was not suggesting that women could not be managers/leaders etc. in non-church settings. The only biblical restriction I see on women in leadership in the church relates to having formal eldership roles and teaching on core foundational doctrinal issues. Those are not issues that are likely to arise in non-church settings.


Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me - and I would suggest that 'university congregations' can hardly be regarded as typical - but where are the conservative chuches recruiting from? My guess is that there are huge groups of people out there that the churches are just not reaching. Some people can no longer hear what the church is saying. Part of that is to due with the prevailing culture, but a big part IMHO is also to do with the language used.

--------------------
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
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 Nicodemia:
My questions to Gordon seem to have got lost - so I'll ask them again!

quote:
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.

By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!


Sorry Nicodemia, they did get lost. The first question: I can't recall that I have read that specific text, but I have heard many good and persuasive arguments why the 1 Tim passage doesn't say what I still think it says. The best from an evangelical perspective was the argument that there is a specific Ephesian problem that Paul refers to, the "doctrine of demons" mentioned in 1 Tim 4:1 and again (possibly) 1 Ti 5:15 where "younger widows" have been led astray, hence the odd-sounding solution of 1 Tim 2:15 the woman "will be saved through childbearing". Thus Paul is addressing a purely local issue.

It is an ingenious reconstruction but I don't find that I'm persuaded by it, and if this was Kerygmania I'd give you the blow-by-blow on exactly why.

As for your second question, I thought it was rhetorical! But seeing as how you ask again, I am generally the one who gets up in the middle of the night when our girls cry, and so I sometimes find time to shoot off the odd angry post at 4 am. And during the rest of the day I am chained to a computer for my work as an editor, and sadly the brain continues to whirr out of hours too.

[ 15. June 2005, 11:03: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

--------------------
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 
Gordon, the Kroeger and Kroeger book bases its theories on firstly Greek grammar regarding the word authentein (I think that's right, without dashing upstairs to dig the book out!) and secondly on the Pagan worship of female godesses in Ephesus. Its quite a large book, and frankly, there is more about pagan worship than I really want to know, but it is well worth reading.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  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 Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention?

Well, I would include Flubb and Russ in this group.
Oh dear, I must be doing a miserable job of communicating my views then.

If we're doing groups, then my reading is that:

The Undiscovered Country and Gordon Cheng are Protestants who believe that women cannot fulfil certain church functions because a plain reading of the Bible says so;

IngoB is a Catholic who believes that women cannot fulfil certain church functions because the Vatican's interpretation of church Tradition says so;

Mousethief is orthodox Orthodox who believes that it's untraditional for women to fulfil certain church functions and that's good enough;

Against these, Peronel, RuthW, Qlib and Nicodemia self-identify with the label "feminist", believing that women have had a rough deal through history and that all persons of goodwill should distance themselves from this historical oppression (because it isn't quite dead yet) by adopting inclusive language;

although each person's position is of course more subtle and nuanced than this brief sketch can possibly convey.

I tend to a liberal broad-church Anglican view that, whilst women are self-evidently capable, what is necessary is for the Church to encompass both feminists and traditionalists, without becoming a creature of either.

Which means trying to disagree with each "side" at the point where their view involves imposing on those of the opposite persuasion.

I'd rather stand with Carys on the importance of the aesthetics of language and not butchering much-loved hymns.

(With apologies to those unmentioned whose views I'm too lazy to go back and summarize)

Best wishes all - I'm off on holiday so won't be around for a couple of weeks.

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 
Well, I'm sorry if you feel traduced, Russ, and I recognise that you're not as hardline as Gordon & Co. but I'm afraid the unnecessary and uncalled-for repetition of Chesterton's old libel meant you were marked down as irredeemably hostile in my eyes. But maybe it was just a momentary lapse of judgement?

Have a good break.

--------------------
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
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 Nicodemia:
Gordon, the Kroeger and Kroeger book bases its theories on firstly Greek grammar regarding the word authentein (I think that's right, without dashing upstairs to dig the book out!)

I am familiar, if not with the book you cite, with a number of the arguments concerning the word "authentein". Here is the TNIV's rendering of the verse in question (TNIV being one of the inclusive language Bible translations I mentioned earlier):

quote:
1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority* over a man; she must be quiet.
(*that is, 'authentein' in the Greek — see the whole passage, with footnotes, in the TNIV translation here)

BTW, I'm impressed by the TNIV's translation of this verse: it’s especially good to see that they have been consistent by using the word ‘quiet’ rather than ‘silent’ to translate the Greek ‘hesuchia’, it’s the same word that is applied to everybody in 1 Ti 2:2

quote:
or kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet* life, godly and dignified in every way.
(*that is, 'hesuchion' in the Greek)

So the consistent translation of 'hesuchia' as 'quiet' just makes much more sense all round.


Back to 'authentein'.

The TNIV footnotes suggest as alternatives:
quote:
Or ‘teach a man in a domineering way’; or ‘teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man’.
The first footnote alternative suggests that it is quite OK for women to have authority over a man, so long as it is not ‘domineering’ authority. This view of the word ‘authentein’ has been put to me over the years by a number of people who would like to see women permitted to teach publicly in mixed congregations. It is hard to be certain either way, however, as quite apart from the fact that the majority of translators remain unconvinced (at least, of those who worked on the major recent English Bible translations) this is the only occurrence of the word “authentein” in the entire Greek New Testament.

It’s rather hard to mount an argument on purely linguistic grounds when you have only one occurrence of the word in the Pauline corpus, and none at all in the rest of the NT.

As well as this, I must say that in this context 'domineering authority' is a rather sexist way of interpreting the word ‘authentein’. We know from other passages that Paul insists that no-one, either male or female, should exercise domineering authority. Yet in 1 Timothy 2, on this view, it is only the women who have this problem! (Note this is not ascribing sexism to Paul, a view that many contributors to this thread would be only to happy to do, but rather to the cultural reconstruction that requires us to assume that it is only the women at Ephesus who suffered from the problem of being bossy)

For comparison, the NRSV, also gender inclusive, has

quote:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
See the text with footnotes here. This is not as good a translation of the verse, for reasons I just outlined.)

--------------------
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 
Sorry for double-post, but in an effort to mudwrestle this thread back on to topic, here is an interesting link on the NRSV which records some of the disquiet of the NRSV translators concerning the inclusive language policy. A quote concerning one of the translators:

quote:
J.J.M. Roberts, another member of the NRSV translation committee, later published an article in which he protested against the "tyrannical and arbitrary authority" assumed by the final editorial committee which had been elected to revise the translation for "stylistic consistency":
... the members of this editorial committee understood their task as involving a far greater authority to revise the translation than the full committee ever intended. According to Dentan [one of the five members of the committee], 'This editorial committee was given power to determine the final form of the text before publication.' Such a formulation is dangerously ambiguous. What the full committee understood and intended as the task of the editorial committee was actually quite limited; while respecting the basic work of the full committee, the editorial committee was expected to make the relatively minor changes to the finished product that were necessary for the sake of stylistic consistency. At least in the case of the Old Testament editorial subcommittee, that is not what happened. Some hint of the far more intensive reworking carried out by this small committee ... can be seen in Dentan's account of non-scholarly consideration that colored their work ... the editorial committee made thousands of changes, some quite substantive, to the translation of the Old Testament made by the full committee, and when members of the full committee became aware of the extent of these changes, many were outraged, feeling that much of their own work on the translation over the years had been irresponsibly gutted."

If you click through to the link I gave, you can poke around the footnotes for yourself and discover the views of some of the translators with links to articles that they wrote. Here is one of those footnotes, reproducing a highly annoyed quote from a respected liberal scholar:
quote:
And for good measure we will note the remarks of Robert Jewett, professor of New Testament at Garrett-Northwestern Theological Seminary. Jewett is himself a liberal, and a supporter of the feminist cause, but he insists upon the obligation of liberal scholars to behave honestly in translating the Bible. Regarding the NRSV he says: "We're facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that's just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul's." Against the specious arguments offered by apologists for these politically correct alterations, Jewett declares that a gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is "almost as bad as Stalin's revisions of world history in which every 10 years he'd change all the history textbooks." These remarks were published in WORLD magazine, vol. 16, no. 6 (Feb. 13, 1998).


--------------------
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
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
in an effort to mudwrestle this thread back on to topic
I thought we'd accepted the need for Bibles (at least the more academic ones) to be as close as possible to the original language. Isn't the topic here inclusive language in liturgy?

--------------------
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
John H
Shipmate
# 9599

 - Posted      Profile for John H   Author's homepage   Email John H   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just out of curiousity - and I hope this isn't regarded as going OT - I've been semi-following this discussion for the past few days, and was wondering if the views of any of the active participants in the discussion have changed or significantly developed in the course of the discussion? Or is this thread maybe destined for here?

[Ultra confused] [Eek!] [Help]

--------------------
"If you look upon ham and eggs and lust, you have already committed breakfast in your heart."

Posts: 423 | From: Orpington, Kent, UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  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