|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a matter of which is worse, "us men" implying male sex, or "us" implying exclusiveness? The former seems worse to me.
That's your judgement; mine would be the opposite (on the grounds that a) some uses of "man" as not implying male sex are well-established, and b) that exclusiveness is a significant temptation).
Rusty John's suggestion of "us sinners" has much merit. But that's beside the point - the important thing about such a conversation is that it weighs up the need for fidelity to the original, the aesthetic dimension, and the need to respond if women feel "inability to connect to the Gospel message" as Sienna so neatly put it.
Taking all those dimensions seriously means that none of them is an absolute need which automatically over-rides the others.
If female members of the congregation (of whatever age) feel strongly that a particular form of words excludes them, that's a good reason for change. Which needs to be taken alongside the aesthetic merits of whatever alternative is proposed, weighing up each individual case on its merits.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before" seems to me a stronger and more resonant phrase than the more recent alternative.
But if common usage (the point of reference for language) ever becomes so "gendered" that the phrase automatically invokes an image of a ladies toilet, then it will be time to retire it.
Perhaps the problem is that there is no usage which is common both to those with an extreme-feminist perspective (that history is a crime committed by men against women) and those who reject such a view ? Being told that we "must" use language in the way that such a view dictates rubs some of us up the wrong way...
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
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Slightly relevant tangent...
Just had lunch in college (beef curry - very nice, since you ask). One student picked up a large bunch of keys belonging to another student and said:
"This is an impossibly large set of keys for a single person to have"
to which a colleague added:
"But it would be OK for a married person to have that many?"
What this proves is:
a) I have too much marking to do right now and am easily distracted
b) what you think you say is not what people always hear
so... to communicate effectively means you need to see how people hear things (yes. I know..) and speak accordingly.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
Something that occurs to me, almost as an aside (and apologies in advance for some clunky English) …
One of the problems claimed about using “for us and our salvation” is that it allows an ambiguity, with “us” possibly being taken to mean “us here present” or “people like us”.
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is “for us people and our salvation” or “for us humans and our salvation”, isn’t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). “For us people and our salvation” can mean “for people like us” or “for us people present”.
Unless the Greek has a word for “all”, and I don’t see any claim that it does (unless I’ve missed something), then “for us and out salvation” removes the gender ambiguity created by translation into English using “men” while retaining a broader ambiguity that was already present in the original?
And “for us men and our salvation” has the same ambiguity in English, so there little, if any, loss in using “for us and our salvation”?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?
If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.
So those of us who have articulated that we find this language unhelpful are either making it up, or are looking for reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image? Uhhh, thanks.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No, I'm suggesting that you and others who "find this language unhelpful" choose to use it to reinforce a bad self image. It's obvious to me that those who have articulated their concerns here are neither weak nor faulty, so why imply that language is forcing you into some false role?
This discussion is very interesting on an intellectual level and the various arguments have made some good points, but emotionally they fall flat. The genders have always been equal in my vision.
Uhhh, you're welcome.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
And - taking that aside even further into a tangent - perhaps 'us humans (or sinners)' won't do anyway. Didn't Christ come to redeem the whole of creation, not just 'us'? "For we know that all creation groans and travails in pain until now" (Rom.8:22).
Maybe the battle over inclusive language is still in its infancy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Old Hundredth
Shipmate
# 112
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Thanks to the downloadable liturgies in Common Worship, at St Valentine's we have our own specially-made service booklets. In the BCP Communion booklet, we have done precisely this, so it reads 'for us and for our salvation'. Tangentially, we have also replaced all references to the Holy Ghost with 'Holy Spirit'.
This works well when you have 'purpose-built' booklets, but it irritates me when a church uses the prayer books but replaces the wording. It doesn't matter so much in the words spoken by the celebrant but it is unfair on newcomers who are not 'in the know' if the words which are spoken differ from those on the printed page as it can serve to make them feel conspicuous when they say something slightly different from the rest of the congo.
--------------------
If I'm not in the Chapel, I'll be in the bar (Reno Sweeney, 'Anything Goes')
Posts: 976 | From: The land of the barm cake | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
No, I'm suggesting that you and others who "find this language unhelpful" choose to use it to reinforce a bad self image.
How blessed we all are that your suggestion is nonsense then. For a start its got nothing to do with my self-image, or that of any of the other men here who also object to it. It is because we do not wish to uise a form or words that misrepresents the gospel by implying the exclusion of those we intend to include.
I think some of us have got so used to stilted liturgical language that we no longer notice when something we say means the plain opposite of what it is meant to mean. The word "men" including women might have made sense in the 1662 BCP, but there is no excuse for using it that way in any text written in current English.
If nothing else it shows a wooden ear for the language, as if we were to write "thou has" or "you hast". It's naff.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How blessed we all are that your suggestion is nonsense then. For a start its got nothing to do with my self-image, or that of any of the other men here who also object to it. It is because we do not wish to uise a form or words that misrepresents the gospel by implying the exclusion of those we intend to include...
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it. The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.
I have no idea what the idiom in Greek is.
But it is certainly the case that in English "for us men and for our salvation" implies (though perhaps very strongly) the existence of other men somewhere who are not offered that salvation, almost as much as "for us" leaving the "men" out does. So the business about "men" being less exclusive od people not presnet is a bit of a red herring.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Old Hundredth
Shipmate
# 112
|
Posted
As I have read through this thread, I have been struck by a paradox (fortunately it didn't give me a black eye...)
Our use of language does indeed change over time, but it is interesting that in parallel with a move away from the use of words like 'men' and 'mankind' to mean the whole of humanity, there is a move towards the colloquial use of the word 'guys' to mean both genders. And not just to refer to a mixed group, but to an all-female one as well (Mrs Hundredth and I have been addressed by Pizza Hut waitresses as 'you guys').
--------------------
If I'm not in the Chapel, I'll be in the bar (Reno Sweeney, 'Anything Goes')
Posts: 976 | From: The land of the barm cake | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
No. That's not what I or - as far as I can tell - anyone else here is argueing.
What I am saying is that language has evolved. So using the word "men" in isolation conveys a gender-biased distortion of the gospel. Changing the words to "men and women" or "us" or the clumsy "human beings" is only editing the gospel if the gospel ever implied that salvation was only or primarily intended for men.
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
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.
Presumably by the same token, people who are black, disabled, Irish, Jewish, Gypsies or wahtever "choose" to be offended by terms used about them. It's their choice and the rest of society should use what language it likes?
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
Are you saying that trying to use language that doesn't imply an exclusion of one group from salvation is "editing the gospel"? That's the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Sine Nomina
This thread would make no sense at all without the underlying understanding by nearly all posters that women have been (and frequently still are) seen as inferior to men. One would think that alone would be enough to make the opponents of inclusive language change their minds. Apparently not.
Help me out here. Let's all agree that the Church oppressed women in former times. How does that mean that the Church currently intends to do so?
First of all I do not believe that the construct "for us men and our salvation" was ever meant to "exclude" women on any level. And I think every single person posting here acknowledges that. This is not about what was originally meant by the text or by the Church or some Victorian forefather. It's about a current (mis)-interpretation.
Interpretation works on more levels than gender.
Let's say two people go to a BCP service of Holy Communion. One believes that they have attended on the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, and the other believes that they have partaken in a memorial meal. Who's right? Who should be offended?
It seems to me that if we can overcome such a significant interpretive difficulty as what's actually going on at the Holy Table, we're probably equal to "men" in the Credo.
Furthermore, this entire argument is almost completely hypothetical. Of all of us posting on this thread, how many of us actually go to a church that uses the egregious construct? Probably just me.
And even if there are more of us who find ourselves at Prayer Book services, who amongst us actually believes that trendy, with-it Anglicanism intends today to exclude women, whatever words are used?
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So on one level you're right: of course noone in church is saying that women aren't saved.
Right.
quote:
is the attatchment to a now outdated and potentially misleading form of words sufficiently strong for them to be worth hanging onto, knowing that some will be offended? Is that form of words more important than knowing that they will impede some people's relationship with God?
The part of this I find interesting is that it doesn't square with the other gender issue that people are constantly wringing their hands about: men don't go to church. How does the "impeded" relationship fit with the oft-observed phenomenon that women outnumber men in church?
quote:
Old Hundredth induced an infarction
Thanks to the downloadable liturgies in Common Worship, at St Valentine's we have our own specially-made service booklets. In the BCP Communion booklet, we have done precisely this, so it reads 'for us and for our salvation'. Tangentially, we have also replaced all references to the Holy Ghost with 'Holy Spirit'.
Why use the Prayer Book at all, then?
There are perfectly acceptable alternative forms available to every Anglican church I know of to avoid creepy references to "Ghosts" and oppressive references to "men".
(by the way, I in no way buy Gordon Cheng's arguments about patriarchy. I'm an advocate for BCP-fidelity. And of course, pointing out the obvious that we all know what is intended by those words in the ever-rarer 8am Holy Communion services at St-Trendy and With-it that still use them).
HT
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Hookers Trick - have you read the whole of the thread? The last few posts seem to have got stuck on the Nicene Creed and Anglicanism, but originally we were talking about all churches, and several of us mentioned modern "worship songs" that talked about us being 'sons' or 'men'.
And believe you me, there are plenty of churches around who would happily put women down into inferior positions!
Not only that, and this is a point that hasn't been mentioned, yet, Christian women who are married to non-Christian husbands are, in many fundamentalist-type churches, relegated to more or less third class Christians, because they haven't got a man to "cover" them.
I don't want to hijack this thread by introducing a tangent, though I would say that there are a lot of men in the church who would rather like women to keep quiet, sit still, and make coffee, not waves.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
I don't know anything about "worship songs", but my feeling in that area is the same as my feelings about the BCP. If it's a traditional hymn, keep as is. If you write a worship song in 2004, you are of course free to be as "inclusive" as you like.
However, if Nicodemia's portrait is correct, does anyone really think changing the pronouns in a few worship songs is the vanguard of the revolution?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Let's all agree that the Church oppressed women in former times. How does that mean that the Church currently intends to do so?
Women are not yet entirely regarded as equals in the Episcopal Church. According to Louis Crew's 1998 data,
quote:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members
I hope things have improved since 1998, but that wasn't exactly the dark ages. ECUSA rector search committees still ask themselves if their parishes are "ready to have a woman as rector." In 2001 the woman who used to be the interim priest in my parish was interviewing for jobs and I was one of her references; how the parish would receive their first female rector was a huge issue for the people who called me. And I can't imagine that things are better for female priests in the CofE. That's not to mention how women are regarded in other churches.
quote:
Furthermore, this entire argument is almost completely hypothetical. Of all of us posting on this thread, how many of us actually go to a church that uses the egregious construct? Probably just me.
ECUSA BCP, Rite One, Prayers of the People, used in my parish on a regular basis:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
This bugs the crap out of me.
And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in, where as recently as the 1980s they were still preaching against women working outside the home and where the current senior pastor will not employ a woman in any position other than secretarial because he works closely with everyone on the ministerial staff and is afraid that if he were to work with a woman people would think there was hanky-panky going on. If someone were to spit in your face, would you choose not to be insulted?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ruth dear your education is showing. Any moment now you'll be launching into "If you prick us do we not bleed?" and the poor old robot will have to sit down to have his/her matrices recalibrated!
--------------------
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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Ruth, who changed "who by thy holy Apostle" to
quote:
who in thy holy Word
???
Leetle M.
Dragging along with a 1662 prayer book
[ 07. June 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Leetle Masha, Marion Hatchett (Commentary on the American Prayer Book) says "in the holy Word" has replaced the reference to "thy holy Apostle" in the 1979 BCP because "The quotation is from 1 Timothy 2:1; since many scholars no longer consider this a Pauline epistle, the preamble is changed to eliminate a stumblingblock."
Wanderer, dear heart, the decreased use of the subjunctive is evidence that we live in a fallen world, and we must all do our little part to bring about God's kingdom on earth. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!
I knew you'd have the definitive answer.
Leetle M.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
First of all I do not believe that the construct "for us men and our salvation" was ever meant to "exclude" women on any level. And I think every single person posting here acknowledges that. This is not about what was originally meant by the text or by the Church or some Victorian forefather. It's about a current (mis)-interpretation.
I think this rather misses the point. The issue isn’t whether the original authors necessarily intended to exclude women, but whether they did so anyway. A history book that ignores any contribution that women , or black people, have made in history may not be intended to ignore them, but by omission may be erroneous in its presentation of the facts, may be biased, may not be appropriate teaching material.
I’m reminded of a science text-book printed some years ago (but not that many years ago). Intended for school use, it included pictures of children “doing science”, involved in various experiments. All of the children depicted were boys, except one – and she was pictured blowing bubbles. The book wasn’t intended to offend females, the authors probably had no intention of denigrating women, if asked they would probably have said that they entirely agreed that women could be as capable of science as men. But in what they had produced they had revealed an attitude towards the roles of the sexes that showed science as “boys’ work”.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!
I knew you'd have the definitive answer.
Leetle M.
Well, the definitive book, at least. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I?m reminded of a science text-book printed some years ago (but not that many years ago). Intended for school use, it included pictures of children ?doing science?, involved in various experiments. All of the children depicted were boys, except one ? and she was pictured blowing bubbles. The book wasn?t intended to offend females, the authors probably had no intention of denigrating women, if asked they would probably have said that they entirely agreed that women could be as capable of science as men. But in what they had produced they had revealed an attitude towards the roles of the sexes that showed science as ?boys? work?.
I just had an interesting experience. I was listening to the news on Radio 4 and there was a story about the parents of a murdered optician suing the police for failing to protect their son. I italicise it because it took me completely by surprise. I heard optician and expected it to have been a woman. I suspect this is because I have, in the course of my life been to three different opticians and they've all been female! It has nothing to do with the word, but with my experience. It doesn't mean that I don't think men can be opticians.
Carys
--------------------
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
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues? In much the same way "Thy Holy Apostle" was changed to "Thy Holy Word" to remove a stumbling block, why not look at creative, scriptural ways to remove some of the stumbling blocks caused by exclusive language?
I'm particularly sorry Gordon has bowed out of the thread because he thinks its a dead horse, because I would really like an answer to how some of the specific language I proposed would lead to a misunderstanding of the various relationships we were discussing, in particular, how mentioning Sarah during the liturgy somehow violates Pauline ideas about headship or the concept of God as our Creator.
I had not thought that even the more conservative strands of Anglicanism would take exception to such an addition, and would really like to hear the theological reasoning behind it - because I honestly can't understand why it's problematic, and I do genuinely want to understand. I'm enough of a "good little Anglican" to think that the best way forward is to try to look for gender-inclusive language that already exists within our Scripture and tradition, and incorporate that. It's certainly there to be found, so why is it such a big "boo" idea to some people, to borrow a phrase?
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
We say "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
OK guys, I'm trying, I really am.
Help me work out how changing:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
To
quote:
...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever
Will solve this problem:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.
?
And Sienna says
quote:
HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues?
No.
There are already plenty of alternatives authorized for use (and some unauthorized options, as Old Hundredth gives evidence) to address "these issues".
More food for thought. After you've all brought back all these people to church who left because they had to say
quote:
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord
how are you going to deal with people like me who are off-put by the "new language" and stop going to church?
Or do I not count because I'm not offended?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark M
Shipmate
# 9500
|
Posted
(dictatorship-of-the-Mark:)
No. Not needed.
(real world:)
I have found some inclusive language things that I actually find more fitting than the default. However, as a rule, I feel that the 'old stuff' has not run out of steam, and that particularly as the language is being offered to a special person, it should indeed be 'special'.
Oh, drat, I misread this whole thing: I realise now it's not talking about modernisation but about rephrasing so as not to offend anyone. Still, I think that the 'old stuff' should be seen as not excluding anyone (e.g. man = 'mankind', but we can still just say 'man'), and that the new stuff unfortunately panders too far in the direction of p.c. gone wrong. An example in a secular context is calling someone a chair, when we can call them a chairman... or to neglect to call a female a waitress (in other languages, gramatically incorrect, and and insult!).
--------------------
I only know three words of Latin: deus caritas est.
Posts: 139 | From: Edinburgh, Scotland UK | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Help me work out how changing:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
To
quote:
...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever
Will solve this problem:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.
?
I never said it would. You stated that the church no longer intends to oppress women. I think there are still elements in the church that do oppress women, and since we're quite aware of how that happens, it can no longer be said to be unconscious. I cited the facts about female priests in the ECUSA getting crappier jobs as evidence.
As other people have already said here, language matters. Language affects how we see others and how we see ourselves. Inclusive language will not suddenly cause people to flock to our churches nor will it instantly make rector search committees less wary about interviewing women for good jobs--and no one has made such claims, despite how you've twisted what has previously been posted. But exclusive language says to many women that we don't count as much as men do, and that is never something that should be said in church. Exclusive language is part of a mindset that allows both men and women on search committees to just interview men because they've always had men and they're not sure the parish is "ready" for a female rector. It is important to be clear that women do matter as much as men do, because historically it has been quite clear that we didn't.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
But Gordon, you still haven't explained exactly how gender-inclusive language threatens these relationships. For example, how does changing "The God of Abraham" to "The God of Abraham and Sarah" cause us to lose our concept of God as our creator, or of men and women as being created in God's image, or constitute an assault on Paul's theology of marriage? Is the idea that Sarah might be a important contributor to salvation history worthy of mention threatening in a way I'm failing to understand?
Hi Sienna, still here!
[croaks: "I'm not dead yet" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
You asked for a specific response to this. My response is I can't see that it's a huge problem, but like a lot of things, it depends on why it's done. Add to this that where possible, I like to mirror biblical language, as I find that sometimes issues that I consider totally unimportant turn out to be significant.
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.
Now to turn to your example: I can't see off the top of my head that acknowledging that Sarah is blessed by God alongside Abraham is going to cause us those sorts of difficulties. It may however raise other difficulties that I am as yet unaware of.
Here are just a few straws in the wind that may—or may not, I'm not sure and would need to think about it more— indicate a broader difficulty. I observe that to speak of "The God of Abraham and Sarah" would be most unusual in NT terms—in fact it never happens. So Jesus, for example, will speak of God as being the God of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".
But I don't doubt that he would not have hesitated to say the God of "Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel" if it was important that he do so. I don't consider that his not doing so is an indication of his culture-boundness, although I suppose others may. After all, this is a man who is not afraid to open up a theological discourse with a lone Samaritan woman; I doubt that fear of the censure of his peers would have caused him to adopt conservative phraseology.
So: it seems to me that speaking of the "God of Abraham" preserves the non-disendorsement [!-sorry for that word] of patriarchy that I have been arguing is a feature of Old and New Testament. It may well be that it also reflects a corporate thinking about humanity that our Western individualistic perspective too easily elides past. It may even be that implicit in such language is the sort of thinking that Peter makes explicit when he says:
quote:
1Pet. 3:4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
1Pet. 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands,
1Pet. 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Now I'm not going to the stake for this theory at all, but it is an example of nuance ( and nuance that resides within the specific form of words we use) that may be lost when we decide for the sake of feminist (or even female, or broader cultural) sensibilities to alter our language to speak of "The God of Abraham and Sarah".
quote:
And you still haven't answered my question of why, if there is no Scriptural or doctrinal reason not to be inclusive with particular language, we shouldn't do so when it is causing people to struggle and stumble. If it costs us nothing in terms of sacrificing truth, but only something in terms of personal comfort level, give me a reason not to do it that outweighs helping people who find the language a stumbling block, even after it has been "properly explained."
If the sole reason for change was to remove offence, this might be a good argument—and even then, we would have to contend with whether or not, in our haste to make the gospel more palatable, we were dismissing as trivial something that turned out, on reflection, to be rather important (eg the "sonship" mistake I think I was making with regard to Romans 8).
But as the discussion has progressed, I rather think that we can push our analysis a bit further, can't we? That is, there have now been a range of reasons put as to why not changing to inclusive language is offensive.
Some of those reasons are fair enough. So it is unfortunate and quite wrong if by a trick of language, women feel that they are being excluded from salvation.
Other of those reasons seem, at least to me, to be a little bit more open to dispute. So if the offence comes because people feel that it is being implied that men have an authority in church that women don't, then it may be that people have understood correctly what the so-called exclusive language is trying to express (which is where my Dead Horse reference comes in, BTW).
To put this another way: sometimes the adherence to non-inclusive language in the face of objections that no-one disputes (eg that no-one wants to say that women are excluded from salvation) reflect a genuine and significant disagreement in other areas. I certainly don't like to be read as implying that women are less important, or excluded from salvation, as I don't believe those things are true. It's the other questions that remain in dispute which would underlie my inertia; others (such as Hooker's Trick) may express a similar inertia about this question, but we then discover that our reluctance to change relies on different grounds. (I will say, though, that I agree with HT's reasons, even if he doesn't agree with mine!)
This may not push us closer to agreement but hopefully it pushes us closer to clarity and charity!
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.
As a matter of theology and history, that's absolutely true. But a person reading it today will not gain that understanding, because "son" no longer conveys "all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright" it did when the passage was written. Even at the time of the Authorized Version, sonship didn't absolutely convey that meaning, since daughters (if without brothers) had specific inheritance rights that might be equivalent to those of sons.
This is a case where no modern word, or even any convenient phrase, comes anywhere close to conveying the full meaning of the Greek.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I'd go for this patriarchy thing if we were still hunters and gatherers, or the next tribe over was out after our flocks. But since we don't even roll down car windows anymore now that we've got electric buttons to do it for us, I have to think this is one of those things the Holy Spirit was going to reveal to us in time.
So I don't think we have to use hunter and gatherer language now either, you know, since plenty of women are bringing home the bacon and frying it up in the pan.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
Those urban centers were still pre-industrial, almost pre-machine, where the greater physical strength of the male in both work and personal defense was crucial and the high infant mortality rate made women as breeding stock a commodity to be protected. Patriarchy paid back then.
Neither of those is still the case in our society. Yet you would take words and concepts that apply specifically to that stage of human development and apply them to ours.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
Both Testaments slag off professional clergy to their heart's content, Jesus Himself being a master-slagger-offer. If Cranmer, instead of being a shilly-shallying floater between fealty to Rome and to what the Spirit showed him in his conscience, had written rubrics which identified President or Minister as Hypocrite or Whited Sepulchre or Den of Vipers, would Gordon and Hooker's Trick still think that the contemporary sense of liturgical language is unimportant?
[ 08. June 2005, 02:59: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...
I'm sorry that you feel that way because I see you as a fine example of exactly the point I've been trying to make. You chose not to accept the gender-biased attitude of that church in defining your self-image.
quote:
If someone were to spit in your face, would you choose not to be insulted?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.
Presumably by the same token, people who are black, disabled, Irish, Jewish, Gypsies or wahtever "choose" to be offended by terms used about them. It's their choice and the rest of society should use what language it likes?
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
quote:
Originally posted by chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
Are you saying that trying to use language that doesn't imply an exclusion of one group from salvation is "editing the gospel"? That's the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time.
EDIT, tr.v. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon, thank you very much for your reply - I'm glad that reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated. Your post has given me some insight into a particular point of view that I hope will be helpful as our parish works its way through this. (although I'm still baffled by one gentleman's assertion that Sarah isn't "Biblical")
I'm a wary of the "lack of disendorsement" argument, because there are several things Christ never "disendorsed" that we now agree (I hope) are wrong - slavery being the most obvious. We are in complete agreement that we need a word other than "disendorse."
At any rate, I've got an 11th grade paper on Hemingway to proofread (speaking of patriarchy ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) - I'll try to return to this later this evening.
--------------------
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
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post...Gort said:
quote:
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
But there's a fundamental difference between "the rest of society" and freedom of speech on the one hand and a Christian church that is trying to conduct itself and its services in accordance with the Gospel on the other.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...
I'm sorry that you feel that way because I see you as a fine example of exactly the point I've been trying to make. You chose not to accept the gender-biased attitude of that church in defining your self-image.
It would be great if women didn't have to keep making that choice, because it sucks up energy that a lot of us would rather use on other things. But with exclusive language we have to making that effort.
quote:
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Sounds to me like you take offense at it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Sounds to me like you take offense at it.
Nah... it's just a judgement call. It is difficult to cause offense with me unless you're physically threatening me.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!
I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
...But there's a fundamental difference between "the rest of society" and freedom of speech on the one hand and a Christian church that is trying to conduct itself and its services in accordance with the Gospel on the other.
"the rest of society" was taken from chapelhead's quote. I agree with you and sympathize with the efforts being made to modernize liturgy and common prayer. It's just that it seems an effort made by those who have already rejected gender bias in hope of somehow helping those who are unable to rise above the effects on their own. Commendable but frustrating. The old "lead a horse to water..." proverb, I guess.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.
I have no idea what the idiom in Greek is.
But it is certainly the case that in English "for us men and for our salvation" implies (though perhaps very strongly) the existence of other men somewhere who are not offered that salvation, almost as much as "for us" leaving the "men" out does. So the business about "men" being less exclusive od people not presnet is a bit of a red herring.
I disagree. Men/humans is in apposition to the pronoun, so it is not qualifying it restrictively, but illustrating who us is. I.e. it is saying `for us, that is for humans'.
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
I partially agree with you here. I would tend though to talk about choosing not to be offended rather than choosing to be offended. In the case of non-inclusive language, the choice I make is not to be excluded by it, especially in the case of trad stuff.
I've been thinking about rewording trad stuff and doing modern versions of prayers/canticles etc and it strikes me that for me at least, it is not depends very much on the context. I dislike changing the words of a hymn at all (though I recognise that there are various hymns which come down to us changed) but changing without to outside in There is a Green Hill far away is basically ok. without in the sense 'not within' is not a common usage today (although I do use it occasionally) and I remember being confused by it as a child. The substitution is also very simple -- one two syllable word for another so it doesn't matter much if one isn't looking at the words and sings without on autopilot. However, I object to changing Slow to chide and swift to bless in Love Divine to Slow to blame and swift to bless because blame does not mean the same as chide. Similarly, CW has changed a couple of words in the canticles from the ASB and I noticed this morning that the heights of the mountains (in the Venite) is now quite normal for me (rather than peaks which tripped me up when we first changed). However, I still strongly dislike the change in the Te Deum from you did not abhor the Virgin's womb to you humbly chose ... because humbly chose is so weak and loses the power of the original. So with inclusive language, I'm fine with the use of neighbours rather than fellow men in the confession (even in Trad language) because there is no real change in meaning but object to the omission of men in For us men and our salvation because it changes the meaning. I think though I could get used to For us humans even though it currently sounds ugly (but so did heights).
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!
I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies!
That's ok. Given the number of times, we've said it since (and someone still asked what the problem was) it probably needed repeating!
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
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Re: huios. I was under the impression that this meant "offspring", which in a language like Greek, or French, or Spanish, is masculine (grammatically not in the sense of natural gender) when you aren't sure who it's referring to, or when it's referring to a mixed group.
So when my mother says "my children", and we say "we're not children, we're grown up", and she says "you'll always be my children, I gave birth to you" and besides we are one son and one daughter, then she is using the word which would be "huioi" in Greek, not the word, which we object to, which would be "paida" in Greek, which would mean "people under the age of 18", and which happens to be neuter. (forgive my crap Greek but you get the idea).
This distinction occurs in other langauges, too: in Kiswahili "mwana" means the person you have given birth to whereas "mtoto" means someone under 18. English doesn't have that distinction, so must decide on "son" (or "daughter") to indicate lineage/birth, or "children" which can mean either a family relationship, or an age thing.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:
Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Re: huios. I was under the impression that this meant "offspring"
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where this is the case. The Greek for 'offspring' is 'sperma' the Greek for 'child' is 'teknon' or 'paidion', and the Greek for daughter is 'thugater'.
I think 'huios' almost always means 'son'; I haven't yet checked all 344 NT occurrences.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?
Of course. The priesthood of all believers is a well established Protestant principle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I don't know about anyone else, but I think I've been consistent in arguing that the meaning of "man" depends on the context, as is the case with many other words. If we started another thread to work out whether the word "sex" meant "copulation", "gender" or something else, I think we'd struggle to agree on one option in that case too. Ditto whether "hoover" refers to a particular brand of machine, vacuum cleaners in general or a former American president.
Maybe this is actually a bad deal for men. After all, women are granted an unambiguous term to refer to their sex (or gender).
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
