|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I said that traditional language is sexist. Sexism is frequently but not automatically oppressive.
La Trick wants to know if using Traditional Language in her personal and public devotions makes her sexist?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The logical error you (and apparently she) have made is to slide from my condemnation of sexist language to the notion that an individual person using sexist language which is sanctioned and issued by the church is sexist. I've never met your wife, and she is not a poster on these boards, so I wouldn't presume to label her as sexist. I'll say only that she is using sexist language.
Qlib put it well, and ken quoted it, but it bears repeating:
quote:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.
Individual women may or not feel marginalized or oppressed; they may or may not actually be marginalized or oppressed. What we are addressing is a structural issue, an ideology, which tends to promote the marginalization of women. This is not to say that throughout the centuries of male supremacy there were never any happy women, and likewise this is not to say that there are no happy, faithful women today whose faith is nurtured by the use of traditional language in their public and private devotions.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are plenty of women in Gordon Cheng's church and in lots of other churches who want a more traditional theology and the traditional language in which that theology is expressed.
Then there are women like me, who want a theology so conservative that it makes Gordon's look positively radical in comparison, but who want the traditional theology expressed with absolute faithfulness and accuracy.
Which means that the whole question of whether or not to use inclusive language is, for me, the wrong question. The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"
If it doesn't, we have a problem. And saying that our audience should understand what we mean doesn't fix the problem. It's my responsibility to say clearly what I mean. If what I've said doesn't communicate what I mean, I need to say it differently.
And it's clear that "for us men and for our salvation" doesn't communicate what we mean. It may have been an accurate translation at one time, but English has changed, and we need to change our translation. Having communicated accurately in the past isn't good enough. We need to communicate our faith accurately now. If someone rejects our faith, we want them to reject what it really is, based on a genuine understanding of what we believe. It's not fair to set people up so that they reject something that we really don't believe.
So we need to change this. Of course, given the way we do things in the Orthodox Church, it's not going to change overnight. I suspect we'll have to get the whole mess with overlapping ethnic jurisdictions ironed out before we can realistically address the need for a new, accurate translation.
But we should clearly acknowledge that it needs to be done, not only for the sake of the feelings of people who are offended by the existing English translations, but for the sake of the Truth.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Josephine ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Indeed! Although I'd say that the answer to this--
quote:
The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"
--leads to the conclusion that inclusive language is in fact necessary right now.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
John H has mentioned I didn't respond to this earlier point:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
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
That's what Bible teachers are for. If Bible teachers are unnecessary, then Paul the Lord Jesus wouldn't have given them as gifts for building up the church:
quote:
Eph. 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph. 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph. 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
The fact that hundreds of people can hear the concept explained, understand it well enough and treat it not as offensive, but as something of an "aha" experience, suggests to me that the basic underlying ideas and use of language are not particularly hard to comprehend; and that it's possible to hear this explanation and not be offended. Indeed that it's possible to be young and female, hear the explanation and actually be quite delighted at the idea of being called a "son of God".
In my experience a number of those who continue to take offence after the idea has been explained are either taking offence on behalf of others, or are offended by the underlying conservative biblical theology implied by the language.
[I've noted the questions asking me to clarify what that theology is and will answer as I have time.]
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
I've heard this many times and it does not "delight" me at all.
The concept of an adopted son inheriting his father's estate/kindgom is an analogy; it is not reality. It seems to me that the theologically correct view is not that "Women must be viewed as sons of God through the cross of Christ."; it is "Women and men, boys and girls all inherit the Kindgom through the cross of Christ".
Would men like to be symbolically emasculated by Christian theology? I honestly don't mind "I prefer traditional language and I honestly don't mean to offend women by that preference." I don't mind "Inclusive language is an interesting point of view but I disagree." I do mind "If only you really understood the theology behind this, you would delight in having God symbolically reassign your sex.[1]"
[1] Or whatever the equivilent of "emasculate" is when it's being done toward women.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Thank you, seeker, that's helped me clarify one of the reasons this language rubs me up the wrong way.
A couple of people have posted about feminism being about denying femininity. On the contrary. My femininess ... uhhh ... womanliness ... uhhh there's no good word ... whatever is an important part of who I am. I'm not a man. I'm a woman. And that's something I'm proud of.
In using phrases like the sons of God I'm in a bind. Either I have to defeminise myself to make myself into a son or, at best, a non-gender specific pseudo son, in order to be part of that group. Or I am outside that group, with the consequent implications for my salvation.
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men? One of the non-official gospels, I think.* That, it seems to me, is the import of attempting to define women as sons of God. It says that my femaleness isn't redeemable.
Peronel.
*it's late. Can't remember the word.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men?
It's not in my Bible. I wasn't even aware that we would have gender in heaven. We certainly won't marry or be given in marriage. Depending on how you look at it, we will all be the bride of Christ (Rev21); at one and the same time we will have attained to mature manhood in Christ (Eph 4). So we won't be having this discussion in heaven, you'll be pleased to know. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
No, not in the Bible. In one of the gospels that didn't quite make it, I think.
NOT argueing that that is authoritative of course. Just using it as an analogy. Possibly a bad one - it's been a long day and it's past midnight.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it's possible to be young and female, hear the explanation and actually be quite delighted at the idea of being called a "son of God".
It's also possible to be young and female, read this translation, and heave the Bible across the room. Or just shrug and shelve it with all the other stuff that apparently doesn't apply to you.
Peronel: Non-canonical?
Questioning the femininity of feminists bugs the crap out of me. It smacks of the thinking that women who are feminists must be lesbians or extremely unattractive or something along those lines which defines women in terms of their relationships with and attractiveness to men.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men? One of the non-official gospels, I think.*
I think you mean the Gospel of Thomas, saying #114:
quote:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Bingo.
That's what describing myself as a "son of god" does. Requires me to make myself male in order to be accepted.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to understand. It certainly isn't. But redefining words creates barriers to communication.
A number of years ago, I was writing a booklet for newly diagnosed diabetics to take home with them. We discovered we had a problem with the word "diet" -- no matter how many times the diabetes educator explained that "diet" doesn't mean "eating less so that you can lose weight," there were always patients who had trouble wrapping their mind around that fact. During the class, they could tell the diabetes educator that "diet" just means "what you're supposed to eat," but later, when they'd reached their ideal weight, they would figure that since they didn't need to lose any more weight, they could go off their diet. And they ended up back in the hospital.
This didn't happen 100% of the time, of course. Or even 50% of the time. But it happened often enough that we quit using the word "diet" entirely, and used "meal plan" instead. Using the word "diet" made it harder to communicate critical information about their health to people who needed that information. We could communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
And I would submit that using the word "son" to refer to women makes it harder to communicate critical information about their salvation to people who need that information. We can communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon said:
quote:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
But why should the befuddlement exist at all? Why should one have to wait until attending a Bible class in one's late teens to have the befuddlement addressed? Why not use a word that conveys the original concept clearly and avoid the confusion altogether? It's looking to me like it's a choice between clarity and better sense of original meaning versus retaining outmoded usage.
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The problem isn't that it's impossible to understand. It certainly isn't. But redefining words creates barriers to communication. <snip> We could communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
And I would submit that using the word "son" to refer to women makes it harder to communicate critical information about their salvation to people who need that information. We can communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
Josephine, you and others have put the argument that clarity of communication is a key issue, and I share that concern—but it is not my only concern.
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
But in so doing, we would have to insist that this process not simply be applied to communicating with feminists. Otherwise we would ourselves be guilty of the most condescending form of discrimination. We would be assuming that it really was only feminists who were limited enough in their understanding to require foreign concepts to be explained in terms they could understand and accept.
So rather, on this view, we must agree that all groups have some claim to have the language of the Bible rewritten on their terms. After all, the gospel of grace should be communicated not only to feminists but also to unreconstructed chauvinists, white supremacists, Buddhists, Swedes and lapsed vegans (to name but a few). Some might even suggest that chauvinists and white supremacists are more in need of hearing that they need to be forgiven, and giving their lives to Jesus Christ as Lord.
Therefore (on the argument of trying to mazimize clarity in communication) it follows that when I in my capacity as gospel preacher try to reach chauvinists, I should produce a Bible or preach a sermon that not only retains traditional language, but actually sharpens up some of the other edges as well so that there are now fewer references to God as being like a hen gathering chicks, or his servant Paul being like a mother with children, or any of those other kinder gentler references that may suggest femininity to some chauvinists. Now we know these references don’t offend most people (myself included), but there are bound to be some chauvinists I’m trying to reach who think religion is just for children and women. and anything I can do to toughen up the message without actually changing it is good—isn’t it? At least when I'm speaking to them. In other circumstances, I would keep the chauvinist Bible well hidden and whip out the feminist Bible to suit the new situation.
If you think, however, that chauvinising the language of the Bible in this way actually alters the basic message, you can probably sympathise with those who hold the view that a shift in language that goes the other way also alters the message.
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
Sienna, I didn’t mean to suggest a malicious playfulness. I’d compare it to the old chestnut about the father who brings his son into the hospital with acute appendicitis—the child is rushed into emergency, the surgeon stands ready to operate, then suddenly announces “I can’t go on: this is my son”. Those who know the punchline to this riddle enjoy the confusion it engenders in those who don’t, but the real enjoyment comes in sharing the meaning. And, although disguised as a riddle, there is a serious point underlying; just as there is with the woman who announces “I’m a Son of God”.
--------------------
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
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
From Gordon:
quote:
Josephine, you and others have put the argument that clarity of communication is a key issue, and I share that concern—but it is not my only concern.
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
I don't understand your equating of "clarity" and "lack of giving offense" - they aren't at all the same thing. "Clarity" means easily understood by the audience, whereas "lack of offense" means palatable to the audience. If something has clarity, it is conveying its intended meaning in a simple, direct way. A change for the sake of clarity is not the same as the excision of offensive language. Some of the most offensive things I've ever heard or read were very, very clear.
The simple fact is, "heir" in this day and age conveys the concept of "inheritance" far better than "son" does, and does so without need to resort to classes or commentaries. Since you yourself have stated the verse applies equally to men and women, why not use a word that conveys the intended meaning in the simplest, most direct manner?
It's the insistence on retaining male-gendered language that no longer carries the meaning it had when the text was written, when there is neutral language that does a better job of conveying the original meaning of the Scripture, that I'm finding hard to understand. Is the gender of a noun more important than its accuracy and faithfulness to the original concept?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I don't understand your equating of "clarity" and "lack of giving offense" - they aren't at all the same thing. "Clarity" means easily understood by the audience, whereas "lack of offense" means palatable to the audience.
Surely not unrelated, though, are they? We've seen examples on this thread of how people will assume that traditional language means that those who use it think women are inferior or somehow excluded from salvation or being in the image of God.
At any rate I think the argument in my second-to-last post is unaffected if we replace the word "clarity" with the words "removal of offense".
--------------------
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
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?
Utterly unrelated actually, as Sienna cogently demonstrated.
quote:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language? I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking how you would convey this?
Some scholars might say that the only way to convey this would be to twist the clear intention of Scripture.
[fixed code]
[ 10. June 2005, 03:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?
Utterly unrelated actually, as Sienna cogently demonstrated.
Er no. People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
quote:
Some scholars might say that the only way to convey this would be to twist the clear intention of Scripture.
Hardly the point though is it? We are then not debating about whether the words are offensive or unclear. We are debating about the underlying meaning that they are trying to convey.
I am trying to convey that men are given authority to rule their households. You disagree, but you understand my meaning. The question I posed to Sienna stands.
[fixed code]
[ 10. June 2005, 14:17: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon, I don't think there is a way to express that particular belief in a way that won't offend some people. That doesn't mean you shouldn't express your belief any more than it means all views expressed by Christians should avoid giving offense at all costs, and I have yet to hear anyone advocate this. In fact, I think Christians are often called to speak in ways that will give offense - you know, the whole prophetic "speak the truth to power" tradition.
But no one, anywhere on this thread, has suggested that we completely eliminate gender as a concept when it's clear from the context that one gender or the other is meant. What we're saying is that when a phrase means both men and women, the language should reflect both men and women, not one gender standing for itself and the subsumed representation of the other - particularly when it's always the same gender doing the representing.
But here's the thing - we've had many, many women tell us over the course of this thread and in real life that they find much of the language used exclusive and distancing (I don't happen to be one of them, but that's not what's important).
You and others have gone to great lengths to explain that this feeling isn't valid, because much of the language they object to does, in fact, include and incorporate women. The proper remedy, it is suggested, is that these people start to perceive things in the "way they are meant." The response has been that it has this distancing effect anyway.
If "man" "mankind" or "men" in these instances includes women, as you and others have flatly stated, then using gender-inclusive language shouldn't be a problem, because it doesn't alter the meaning. In fact, as the son/heir discussion illustrates, such a choice of language may better express the meaning in a way that is independent of gender.
It's the insistence on retaining the male gender in cases where you have stated that it means both men and women that I don't understand. WHY is "men" always the preferred term rather than "people" or "humanity" when we're talking about men and women?
If you're maintaining that "humanity" does not mean the same thing as "men (incorporating women)," and moving to that would change the meaning, then you're obviously finding a gender component in "mankind" that you're heretofore said isn't there.
I really think St. Paul's comments about eating meat from pagan sacrifices are instructive here. If language is causing pain, distance and is a stumbling block to others, why should we not change it when the original meaning can be preserved and in some cases, restored?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I really think St. Paul's comments about eating meat from pagan sacrifices are instructive here. If language is causing pain, distance and is a stumbling block to others, why should we not change it when the original meaning can be preserved and in some cases, restored?
Interesting! I'm writing a sermon on this very passage right now—typing with my left hand while I type to you with my right! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
You and others have gone to great lengths to explain that this feeling isn't valid, because much of the language they object to does, in fact, include and incorporate women.
Actually, if I believed what feminists believed, then I would indeed be offended, because, as you say
quote:
I don't think there is a way to express that particular belief in a way that won't offend some people.
Exactly. The heart of the matter is, we really do think different things on some of these matters. Our language reflects this. We understand it, and we don't like what we hear.
I imagine that if I modified my language as suggested, people would still cotton on to the fact that we disagreed— it would just take a few nanoseconds longer (I'm allowing here for the superior intelligence of the average Shipmate:)).
--------------------
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
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Gordon said:
quote:
People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
And you've been told several times that the explanations do not adequately address the problem for a lot of these people. So, should we keep repeating the unhelpful explanation over and over until their eyes glaze over, just write them off as willful or slow, or try something else?
You still haven't answered my question regarding why, when "men" means "men and women," "humanity" isn't a valid substitute.
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
And no, Gordon, I don't think we're going to eliminate Christian disagreements this side of Heaven. But I think we're supposed to try, and I think we're supposed to be generous with one another over non-essentials. I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
You still haven't answered my question regarding why, when "men" means "men and women," "humanity" isn't a valid substitute.
Like the Abraham/Sarah discussion earlier, I can't see a great problem with this one substitution. But it really depends on the reason why it is done.
quote:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
quote:
But I think we're supposed to try, and I think we're supposed to be generous with one another over non-essentials. I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
I like the idea of generosity! But I am uncomfortable with the idea of any matter addressed by God being classed by us as "nonessential". It may not be a salvation issue, but it may nonetheless turn out to be quite important. It clearly is for some, or this thread wouldn't have been started. So I think a lot of others discussing the matter here would not agree that it is "nonessential".
Or is it your view that the Bible itself sees gender differences as a matter of little importance?
--------------------
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
|
|
Avalon
Shipmate
# 8094
|
Posted
I realise that this thanks should best have been done as a PM rather than appearing on this thread as a tangent but there were too many people. I'm going to miss many people whose words warmed my heart by naming the ones whose names seem to appear most often on a quick run backwards as it is. So thank you Sienna, Peronal, Ruth W, Seeker963, Nicodemia, Ken, Qlib, Charles Read, Sine Nomine because words do have a strange power much the way physical applause supposedly raises dead fairies. If you can raise a few wing flutters in this heart I hope you can revive more hearts with more strength by your fidelity and persistance with words here. Thank you and to those whose names I missed.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Gordon said:
quote:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
But why should the befuddlement exist at all? Why should one have to wait until attending a Bible class in one's late teens to have the befuddlement addressed? Why not use a word that conveys the original concept clearly and avoid the confusion altogether? It's looking to me like it's a choice between clarity and better sense of original meaning versus retaining outmoded usage.
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
It isn't a case of superior knowledge and neither is it a case of some mystery that one has to wait for a special class in one's late teens for. I don't think that was Gordon's point at all. I think what he meant was that it is a straightforward concept widely taught and not complex to understand. I wonder if this does however highlight part of the 'fault line' around which this debate centres. Does it tend to be Christians from churches where issues like inheritance, our rights and authority as belivers and all that implies (and i'm sure there's a word to sum up that overall theology but I can't think what it is!)is not emphaisied that also have a problem with 'sons' and similar language because without that wider framework it is just then a debate about words? I'm not suggesting that with any kind of superior overtones, just obseving a possible pattern.
The problem with going over to phrases like 'heirs of God' or 'child of God' is that part of the reason we are sons of God is that we are one body with the Son of God. It is through Him that we devive our inheritance and so to change the language actually then begins to confuse our understanding of the whole basis for our standing. We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
Another great huge gulf between us: I don't see God as having been that directive about the language used in the Bible. I think people used the language they knew.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
I think you're misunderstanding my use of the term "non-essentials," particularly if you think I've said that gender is somehow unimportant. Let me try to explain and answer your questions at the same time.
First, I don't agree with you that the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original texts translated as the inclusive "men" carry the ever-present concept of subordination of women to men (big surprise), but I glad to have confirmed that this is your view, as it was the only explanation I could come up with for your objection to terms like "humanity," but didn't want to make any assumptions.
Under this view, then, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" would mean "Christ came to save all men and all women (who, we must remember, are subordinate but equal to men)" whereas the phrase "Christ came to save all humanity" would mean only "Christ came to save all men and women," thus leaving out important information.
Under this interpretation, gender subordination (not gender difference - an important distinction) becomes of such overwhelming importance that it must be ever-present, in every discussion about human relations with God. The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Under my interpretation, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" means "Christ came to save all men and women" means "Christ came to save humanity." There is no need to consider any theology of gender, liberal, convervative, or in-between. Accordingly, as gender information is a "non-essential" in this instance, I'm happy to replace the phrase "men" with "men and women" or "humanity" - because the meaning is the same, and the replacement will remove an impediment to those who are struggling.
Finally:
quote:
I said:
quote:
I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
You replied:
I like the idea of generosity! But I am uncomfortable with the idea of any matter addressed by God being classed by us as "nonessential".
Where did God say that "men (including women)" or "mankind" is the term that must be used when referring to humanity?
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
Another great huge gulf between us: I don't see God as having been that directive about the language used in the Bible. I think people used the language they knew.
And that might be why its so difficult to find common ground on this issue-because many of those involved are coming from wider different starting points. In some ways it isn't a debate about inclusive language. Its a debate about the type of inspiration and continued validity of the original scriptures.
--------------------
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
TUC said:
quote:
The problem with going over to phrases like 'heirs of God' or 'child of God' is that part of the reason we are sons of God is that we are one body with the Son of God. It is through Him that we devive our inheritance and so to change the language actually then begins to confuse our understanding of the whole basis for our standing. We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
2 questions:
1. Are you really suggesting that by the substitution of "heir" for "son" we're in danger of either forgetting Jesus as the agent of our salvation, or forgetting that he incarnated as the male Son of God, or forgetting that He exists at all?
and
2. Why should we run the risk of translating scripture at all?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Sienna asked: quote:
2. Why should we run the risk of translating scripture at all?
Interesting point. Perhaps as is the ideal in Islam of reading the original Arabic, we should all be required to learn to read the original Hebrew and Greek in order to be proper Christians.
[ 10. June 2005, 06:15: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
Er no. People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
Gordon, I don't want some man patronising me and explaining what the text really means. I want to read it and feel I belong to this group, that the Gospel is for ME. in my own right, not as a second clas person.
Sorry, I know Gordon posted this ages ago, but you Australians and Americans post so much before we in the UK get up!!!
Now I'll get breakfast and come back to the rest of the thread afterwards!
Oh, and to Peronel
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Some people here seem to think that inclusive language is a (post)modern issue raised first a few decades ago by feminism. Well, not so. As usual in matters of religion, before the "enlightenment" took hold things were in better shape:
quote:
From "Inclusive Language in the Liturgy: Historical Perspectives":
It is clear that gender-balanced language has been used in Latin and vernacular liturgical prayers since the fifth century, though it was used less frequently than generic masculine language. One unanswerable question is why our ancestors in the faith sometimes used one construction instead of the other. A question to which at least a partial answer can be given is why inclusive language seems to have been used less frequently as the centuries passed. It is clear that there was a substantial decrease in the use of gender-balanced language during the Tridentine period (1570-1970) compared to the medieval era. One reason is that the vernacular general intercessions were deleted from the liturgy at that time, and they were a significant occasion for the use of inclusive language. A second reason is that liturgical texts from Italy were used as models for the Tridentine liturgical books, and these had never used as much inclusive language as those from farther north.
As usual my conclusion is: bring back the dark ages... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
I think this is the heart of the disagreement.
My position: I don't like the use of "men" in today's liturgy" because it implies that men are the 'default sex', made in God's image, and women are merely a subset of that; that women are subordinate to men; that women are inferior in authority and in redemption to men. I think this is a distortion of the Gospel caused by the evolution of language and thus, if we wish to communicate clearly, we need to rethink our language.
Your position: women ARE subordinate in authority to men. That IS part of the gospel. Updating language to "men and women" or "people" when the Bible uses "men" is thus distorting God's revealed truth about the relative roles of the sexes.
That's slightly exagerated, but is it roughly in the right ball-park?
If so, then the problem isn't language. Its theology. Those of us who have been argueing that the use of man is gendered and discriminating have been right all along. Your use of "for us men and our salvation" is intended to convey a subtext of female subordination. At its extreme, that is a message of oppression.
Now you're entitled to that belief, I suppose, even if I think it is fucked up. But to try and argue that women are "subordinate in authority" and at the same time to argue that women who interpret your language as oppressive are mishearing and in need of education is logically nonsensical. Your language IS oppressive, because it is intended to convey that women should be subordinate in authority to their husbands. The fact that some are happy with that makes it no less discriminating.
Lyda Rose had it right on the previous page:
quote:
any concern about the sensitivity of those who feel oppressed by such language is superfluous since it's just women whining about their God-given place in life.
Bluntly, I suspect that you're doing a great disservice to some of the girls (and boys) who are growing up to believe that God appointed men to be in authority over them. I hope, in the future, a few of them stumble on the Ship or something like it and learn it is possible to be Christian without believing that God says men are superior in authority.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
First, I don't agree with you that the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original texts translated as the inclusive "men" carry the ever-present concept of subordination of women to men (big surprise),
Better I think to say that I believe the idea is usually not absent, but sometimes present. Finicky I know.
quote:
Under this view, then, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" would mean "Christ came to save all men and all women (who, we must remember, are subordinate but equal to men)" whereas the phrase "Christ came to save all humanity" would mean only "Christ came to save all men and women," thus leaving out important information.
A bit too binary for me. Again, the idea may or may not be present, but it is not excluded.
quote:
Under this interpretation, gender subordination (not gender difference - an important distinction) becomes of such overwhelming importance that it must be ever-present, in every discussion about human relations with God.
Ah. Here the reason for my pernickety little nuances. I would reword this as
"gender subordination becomes of importance, in a way that it is often present in discussions about human relations with God, and ought never to be excluded"
quote:
The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Yes, me too. Most of my conversations don't consciously do this.
quote:
Where did God say that "men (including women)" or "mankind" is the term that must be used when referring to humanity?
As far as I know he didn't.
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought". That's why I would want to preserve the freedom for others to speak differently to the way that I do, whilst guarding my own freedom to speak differently to the way that they do.
IngoB, a useful historical perspective, although as always I will want to argue the pre-eminence of the biblical component of the tradition. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that inclusive language is used to a greater or lesser extent at various points in church history. I am rather a fan of the Dark Ages too. I observe that within certain contemporary strands of Western feminism, the demand for inclusive language is rather more pronounced than it seems to have been in ages past.
--------------------
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
quote:
"gender subordination becomes of importance, in a way that it is often present in discussions about human relations with God, and ought never to be excluded"
So gender subordination is SO important that we should include it in all our thinking about how we relate to God? I'm not sure I can explain my reaction to that statement adequately when not in Hell, but I don't think you and I are living on the same planet GC.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I don't think you and I are living on the same planet GC.
Thank you for that! Agreed.
It seems to me that Gordon Cheng, ironically, is providing a shining example of why inclusive language is important.
Some church leaders, it seems, use phrases like "for us men..." to deliberately convey a message of female subordination. Thus, if you do not wish to convey that message (and I assume that most posting on this thread do not) then it behooves you to avoid that language. Because, if you do not, how are your listeners meant to know if what you're really saying is "men and women, equal in authority and in the sight of God" or "men and subordinate women"?
Peronel.
[ 10. June 2005, 07:17: Message edited by: 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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language?
Obviously you can't. Because the reason non-inclusive language is offensive is because it conveys a variety of hidden messages, one of which you’ve just made explicit. Ultimately it’s the message that’s offensive, not the language. I find the idea that God gave men authority over their households supremely offensive. It offends me as a woman and a mother, it offends me as a human being, and it offends me spiritually, as it conveys a view of God that I find, quite frankly, blasphemous.
And I’m happy that we agree to differ on this point, but what I don’t understand, Gordon, is why you then come on to this thread and argue that you’re a nice liberal person who respects women and we should accept your view that the language is not offensive. You don’t find it offensive because it fits your world view. We find it offensive for the same reason.
And, of course, talk of a ‘feminist’ (or 'chauvinist') Bible is patronising nonsense. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some passages in the Bible will reflect the patriarchal times when they were written, but there is a problem when the ‘translation’ uses sexist, non-inclusive language that does not faithfully reflect the original text.
P.S. Why do so many people think the Gospel of Thomas is wonderful? Doesn’t this:
quote:
"Look, I will guide her..”
make Jesus sound just like Tony Blair?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sienna said:
quote:
The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Yes, me too. Most of my conversations don't consciously do this.
Well, of course. Let non-inclusive language do it on its own. Making sure that non-inclusive forms are used at every opportunity can allow the subordination of women to be continuously pointed out without the tedious necessity of doing it consciously.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
Qlib, I hate it when people say what I tried to, but clearer
And yeah on Jesus/Tony Blair. Actually there's a resemblance in some of the cheesier christian art, too. Neither of them ever stop smiling.
Peronel.
--------------------
Lord, I have sinned, and mine iniquity.
Deserves this hell; yet Lord deliver me.
Posts: 2367 | From: A self-inflicted exile | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Your position: women ARE subordinate in authority to men. That IS part of the gospel. Updating language to "men and women" or "people" when the Bible uses "men" is thus distorting God's revealed truth about the relative roles of the sexes.
That's slightly exagerated, but is it roughly in the right ball-park?
It's essentially on the mark, except for the statement you made that "That IS part of the gospel".
Gender relationships are not a gospel issue; or more accurately, they are not part of the gospel until someone insists that they are. I am certainly not insisting that they are, but others who take up an opposing view may possibly be. I won't put words into their mouths, however.
Anyway, as my interest in this has to do with clarity in language and the freedom to express what we think with clarity (and, where possible, with grace), the acknowledgement of genuine disagreement is an important step. I would rather not be the one to say that it's a gospel issue, as I generally consider such things to centre around the divinity and humanity of Christ, his death as a substitute for our sins, his bodily resurrection, and the glorious hope of coming judgment and salvation.
Thanks for the discussion, and perhaps we've gone as far as we can reasonably be expected to at this time? I'm not sure I have much to add, anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Re. 'son / child' of God language - we discussed this at length a few pages back and I seem to recall we decided I was right. (I might have misremembered that, but I'm sure did).
As for Father God being a passe song and not used much, well call me a fuddy duddy but I go to places where we still sing it from time to time - always inclusivised.
More recent compositions using exclusive language would include How Deep the Father's love for us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. 'son / child' of God language - we discussed this at length a few pages back and I seem to recall we decided I was right. (I might have misremembered that, but I'm sure did).
That's odd, I can't recall that... perhaps you could give a link to where the decision was taken?
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".
Are you sure you haven't bought into the concept of an infallible English translation because of your liking for the theology?
If, as you say, the Bible contains considerable support for the notion of female subordination, then it should not be necessary for you to make use of a mistranslation in order to ram that point home. If "sons of..." in context was used by the author to mean "heirs of..." or "children of..." rather than "male offspring of..." then in persisting in the use of "sons of..." in English, you are possibly guilty of using a corrupt text to further your own interpretation and I consider this a pretty dangerous position to be in, for someone claiming a sola scriptura theology.
If the Reformation taught us, Catholic and Protestant, anything in the West, isn't it that though Tradition doesn't change the expression of that Tradition must always adapt to speak clearly to the people of the time? Thus conducting everything in Latin when no-one spoke it was a Bad Thing (my arguments for Latin on another thread are for the common parts of liturgy that a small child could learn in a week, not general use) and so on. I think you're potentially making a similar mistake with C16 English.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".
Are you sure you haven't bought into the concept of an infallible English translation because of your liking for the theology?
hi GF
I was attempting to base my argument on the Greek and Hebrew, at least in my own mind, even though I'm posting in English. I'm not an expert but I'm trying to reflect what I do know of the original languages.
--------------------
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
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
It's not about "denaturing an analogy". The analogy is destroyed when it is turned into a reality. You seem to be saying "It's not that God treats us like the adopted son of a Roman citizen who gets to inherit the estate even though he was not born into the family. It's actually the reality that we must all become adopted sons of God (and women must give up what makes them essentially female)."
There is nothing wrong with creating a new analogy and noting that, since women can inherit in our culture but could not inherit in the first century culture, that God treats us all like adopted inheriting sons and daughters. I'm not suggesting changing the biblical text, but I not only think that it's perfectly OK to change the analogy for sermons and hymns, but I'd go further and insist that saying it's not OK turns the analogy into an actuality.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
Interesting. This is somewhere where you and the strongly pro-inclusive language people* agree (as Peronel and Qlib have commented) and I disagree. You both see a gender-bias in the non-inclusive language whereas I would say that when `man' is used inclusively it says nothing about the gender images, it's just that English has confused itself by using the generic species term (or the Anglo-Saxon one at least) for the male of the species.** As Metapelagius asked many pages ago, whatever happened to wer as the term for a male man?***
On the son/heir discussion, I feel the need to point out that heir is in fact a masculine term. Or at least it was until very recently. I also think that The Undiscovered Country's point that it loses the relational aspect (one's heir could be a second cousing twice removed or indeed someone one has chosen) conveyed by son is a good one, but I quite agree with those who say that we shouldn't have to deny our femaleness in order to be saved which leads me to say (as someone else has done) that there is no very good word in Modern English. I think this is why I am happy to live with a mixture of traditional and inclusive language. Things written today should reflect today's idiom and the fact that man/men have lost most of their generic sense means that we should avoid them. I remain to be convince that we have to meddle with the words of older hymns.
*Sorry that's rather convoluted but I had to attempt to find a phrase that didn't imply things about my position that are not entirely true. I thought feminist, but I am a feminist, I'm just not hugely bothered about inclusive language in every apsect.
** Interestingly, looking at species terms and gender more generally there are examples where the default is the female. For example, a male goose is a gander and a female goose a goose, but geese implies both. Similarly ducks and drakes. But then there are lions and lionesses. Others have a species term and then two different words for the male and female: swans, pen, cob; sheep, ewe, ram.
***The fact that sounds so ridiculous convinces me than man is more predominantly male in its connotations today than goose is female.
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Things written today should reflect today's idiom and the fact that man/men have lost most of their generic sense means that we should avoid them. I remain to be convince that we have to meddle with the words of older hymns.
This I would agree with absolutely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I... think that it's perfectly OK to change the analogy for sermons and hymns.
And even sometimes in scripture. I remember reading some time ago about missionaries to a tribe of Amazonians. When the missionaries - part of whose brief was to translate the bible into these people's language - gave them their first taste of bread, it made them violently sick.
So when the missionaries came to translate the words of Jesus, 'I am the bread of life,' this gave them a huge problem. Did they translate faithfully, thus communicating to the Amazonians that Jesus is spiritually indigestible, or change the text to create an analogy that they would understand?
In the same way, if there are women who can't digest the idea of having to 'become sons' or of being included in the group 'men' (in much the same way that I couldn't begin to relate to being a 'daughter of God' or to being included in the group 'women'), is it more faithful to the gospel to alienate them and then blame them for not understanding language in the same way you do, or to find a way of articulating the same truths that includes them fully and equally?
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
