Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

I think it?s a pretty poor point.

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

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

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

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

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

---

I think it’s a pretty poor point.

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

"For us whites and for our salvation"

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

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

"For us blacks and for our salvation"

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

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

---

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


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

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

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

Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goodric:

quote:

---

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

"For us whites and for our salvation"

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

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

"For us blacks and for our salvation"

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

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

Peronel

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

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

---

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

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

I AM an older lady

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
From Gordon:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---