|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
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?
And what about those poor saps with ciliac's disease, who can only eat gluten-free? How could they possibly relate to this image? Is Jesus trying to poison them?
Or should we perhaps allow that it's possible to understand and empathise with the experience of those who are unlike us, and allow that even Amazonians are capable of doing this?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or should we perhaps allow that it's possible to understand and empathise with the experience of those who are unlike us, and allow that even Amazonians are capable of doing this?
Well, of course it is... but such empathy and understanding is rarely complete (none of us really knows what it's like to be someone else), and the further the leap of empathy needed, the greater the likelihood of misunderstanding.
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
No, this is quite right and I'm sorry for my sarcasm. But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant. Which helped them understand the Bible without needing the analogy translated for them—Israelites eating Arnott's SAOs and so on and so forth...
--------------------
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
But people with Coeliac's disease live in a society where the understanding of bread as the 'staff of life' is well-established. Nobody's saying that an Amazonian wouldn't be capable of understanding the concept but the phrase simply wouldn't strike them in the same way. Language works on more than just the literal level. One of your problems on this thread is that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that.
But actually, I don’t think you do really have a problem with understanding – you are just very disingenuous. Your favourite tactic against liberals is to turn find ways of accusing them of being illiberal. So when you imply that someone who wants to translate the word ‘bread’ into something that relates more directly to the lives of Amazonian Indians is being patronising, that’s just a new card to play in the game, isn’t it?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
The point of phrases like "bread of life", it seems to me, is that they hit home on an emotional level.
Christ could have said "I am here to nourish you" or "I am here to self-sacrificially provide those resources which you lack." The meaning is sort of equivalent, but all the emotive power has gone. Words are powerful precisely because they can convey meaning beyond the raw text, by triggering connections with the hearer's experiences and memories. Bread conveys warm, wholesomeness and savour which the more prosaic words - no matter how they're explained - simply do not.
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
But all this, it seems to me, is irrelevant. You've already said you want to convey a gendered message that places women in a submissive role. So sons is probably pretty accurate for you. It is, after all, sons who aren't the inheritors, and aren't the daughters lucky that God is able to overlook their girlishness and let them, too, into the Kingdom.
You can't have it both ways. You simply can't. If you want the undertones of your language to convey a message that places women below men then so be it. I think you're wrong, but I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise. But stop argueing that women shouldn't be offended, or are only offended because they haven't been properly taught.
After all, in your eyes, the only education that would work is - one assumes - that which teaches women they should submit to male authority, and thus allows them to hear this language in that light.
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 Qlib:
. Language works on more than just the literal level. One of your problems on this thread is that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that.
no I agree with you on this. That's why I don't like tinkering with translation, and that's why we need teachers and ongoing discussion about meaning.
quote:
But actually, I don’t think you do really have a problem with understanding – you are just very disingenuous. Your favourite tactic against liberals is to turn find ways of accusing them of being illiberal.
Who knows? You may be right about my motives, and the bible would say worse about me. That says very little about the truth of the point.
[Sorry, Coeliac's not ciliac's—a dyslexic moment on my part]
--------------------
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 Gordon Cheng:
But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant.
So, we don’t actually need to translate the Bible from the original languages, because the Lord Jesus will provide people who can tell us all about it and explain it all for us?
I think you are, quite deliberately, confusing two things. Some phrases and expressions in the Bible will, inevitably, require specialist knowledge to make them explicable – ‘unleavened bread’ being a minor example of this. But other parts simply need translating into the correct idiom.
Therefore, when translating the phrase “unleavened bread” into the language of Pob’s Amazonian friends, it would be right to translate it literally. However, when translating the statement “I am the bread of life”, it would be wrong to translate it literally as ‘bread’ because it’s a metaphor, and Jesus did not (presumably) intend the metaphor to convey the message: "I am that foreign muck that makes you all sick."
[ 10. June 2005, 10:47: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Although I am grateful to the shipmate who has pointed out to my by PM that, given the impact of the arrival of 'Christian civilzation' upon the Amazonian tribes, "I am that foregin muck that makes you all sick" may have been exactly what he did mean.
--------------------
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:
I think you are, quite deliberately, confusing two things. Some phrases and expressions in the Bible will, inevitably, require specialist knowledge to make them explicable – ‘unleavened bread’ being a minor example of this. But other parts simply need translating into the correct idiom.
You're going to have to explain this to me Qlib, and assume as you go that my language skills are quite limited.
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable?
I don't get that. Why not a simple: "I'm sorry—normally when we feed people bread they don't throw up" followed by business as usual.
--------------------
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
Perhaps this will help.
There is - I believe - a tribe that lives somewhere in australia that eats ants.* The ants store sugar and water in their swollen bodies, so are sweet, succulent, nourishing and refreshing. But eating the sugar inevitably kills the ants.
This is, it seems, a good analogy for Christ. His blood is a sweet fluid on which we feed and are refreshed. Unlike the ants, he willingly sacrifices himself for us.
Yet, even though intellectually the analogy holds, somehow talking about Christ as the turgid ant-belly of life just doesn't work for me.
Does it for you?
Again, though, all this is only relevant if you think that the subtext of women being inferior is an unwanted side-effect of using phrases like "sons of God". If you believe that women should be submissive to men and shouldn't teach or lead men, then "sons" is exactly the word you're looking for. After all, it conveys your masculine supremacy nicely.
You still haven't explained this dichotomy. Women, you've said, cannot lecture to groups of men. How is it, then, that women teachers are not - as you claim - marginalised?
Peronel
*this is from daytime tv, so the details may be wrong. THe analogy still holds.
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable?
Qlib is quite capable of explaining for herself, but I assume the distinction is this.
When christ referred to himself as the "bread of heaven" he presumably didn't mean he was round, contained water, salt and ground barley, and had been baked at 220 degrees for forty minutes.
Rather, he was using a metaphor. The image of bread served to communicate something of how we are nourished by Christ.
THe analogy only works if bread means "nourishment" to you. For these people - as for you and I with the ants in my post above - it didn't. You can explain that most people eat bread as much as you like but the most you can hope for is intellectual assent.
Which, it seems to me, is a pretty poor way to try and communicate the gospel.
In the same way you can say until you're blue in the face that women really are sons too but many women simply won't buy it on anything other than an intellectual level. And intellectual understanding doesn't bring people to faith; it certainly doesn't change lives.
Small enough words?
--------------------
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:
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
Hmm... Peronel, we seem to have large areas of overlap in our understanding about the function of language. I certainly don't believe that you shouldn't be offended by my views, no matter how much I explain them. Indeed, assuming that you assume what you've said you assume, the more I explain what I think, the more offended you'll get! Not that I want this, but it seems quite likely .
However I have a question for you about the paragraph I snipped here—is it your view, based on what you said, that women can't understand men?
Consequently, when Paul says
quote:
1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.
do you think "Paul you are lying like a rug, you don't understand and you never could"?
And do you subsequently think "However I, being a woman, do understand, and if Paul understood what he was actually saying, it's quite a nice analogy"?
Do you then subsequently subsequently think "Gosh, it's a pity no man who reads this could ever really 'get' it, being ontologically incapable of comprehension of the 'nursing mother' experience"?
Or, alternatively, do you possibly think "hmm, nice image, I think a lot of people could relate to that."
--------------------
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
Gordon, you didn't really answer this the last time, which is understandable considering the level of flak you're copping here.
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
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.
I would half-agree here. That the Greeks and Hebrews used the masculine plural to describe a mixed-gender group reflects that their societies had decided that women were subordinate. It is not evident, however, that when the Biblical writers use the masculine plural as inclusive that they are necessarily buying into that decision or that God, speaking through them, is conveying that decision is valid. They may simply be using the grammatical rules available to them, without regard to the historical origins of the rules. In other words, when one sees "men" in scripture being used to convey "men and women," one may be looking at a mere human artifact of the language, not a connotation that the Biblical writer or God meant to convey.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author
Hi GF, sorry for not answering earlier, and pretty soon I'm going to go off and watch the teev with my wife, which will make me even less communicative.
Yes, I think the translation is accurate. However
quote:
the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
In Romans 8:14? (where I took the SoG eg from)
No, I wouldn't say that Paul was saying anything at all about the "subordination of women in the divine purpose" in that particular verse. Was he assuming it? Well, I would have to argue that from elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, but the short answer is "yes". And if you decided to translate "sons" as "children" in Romans 8:14, it's likely that you would have departed somewhat from the thoughtworld that Paul inhabited.
and in the process given yourself a few other translation headaches as well, eg next time I read "huios" in Greek am I going to translate it as "son" or "child"? Why or why not? You get the picture.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
Hmm... Peronel, we seem to have large areas of overlap in our understanding about the function of language. I certainly don't believe that you shouldn't be offended by my views, no matter how much I explain them. Indeed, assuming that you assume what you've said you assume, the more I explain what I think, the more offended you'll get!
Yup. That would be because your view that God made women to be submissive in authority to men is offensive. Sexist language usually is, whether its intended to be or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
However I have a question for you about the paragraph I snipped here—is it your view, based on what you said, that women can't understand men?
I have no idea how you get that from what I've written. Rather, I think the problem is that some women - me included - are unable to understand that they are men. That would be because ... duh ... we're not.
I am also unable to understand why, in order to be included in the language of the church, I should have to self-identify as a man. Especially when that language is intended to place me in a subordinate position.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Consequently, when Paul says
quote:
1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.
do you think "Paul you are lying like a rug, you don't understand and you never could"?
You're setting up a straw man. By this logic, in using the phrase "bread of heaven", Christ was "lying like a rug" because he'd never been a loaf, and so could never understand what it really meant to be dough. Plenty of men have experience of being nurtured by a mother, and it's that nurturing that is the issue here, just as in "bread of heaven" it's the nourishing that's important rather than the appreciation of how a farmhouse cob actually feels.
More important, however, is this: were you to expect your church to recite on a weekly basis "we are nursing mothers to our daughters in Christ" or whatever, I would expect at least some of the men (and women!) in the room to experience some level of disconnection.
Or are you really saying you could happily call yourself a mother in christ or a daughter of God without feeling the language was - intentionally or not - excluding you?
Over-riding all this, though, is the simple fact that women in your church have far more problems than the language you use. By your own admission, they are considered second class citizens, subordinate in authority to their men. They are not allowed to teach or lead men, simply because of their gender.
Frankly, you could use inclusive language as much as you liked, and it wouldn't alter the fact that your approach is fundamentally sexist.
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
But you are insisting on the use of the English word "men" to translate Greek and Hebrew words that do not imply maleness.
Why is it neccessary to use sex-typed language nowadays when the Holy Spirit did not find it neccessary to inpire the Biblical authors to do so?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Gordon, you actually seem to me to be saying that you believe, and that you believe St Paul believed, that women are in an inferior position in the economy of salvation, rather than in the natural order.
You actually think that in using the masculine to convey inheritance and adoption and so forth, Paul is implying this, don't you? Otherwise you would surely be content to let a gender-neutral translation stand and fight the battle over those passages that deal with order and authority.
However, I'm with you on one point - that the more literal translation should be retained at least in a footnote, as it is throughout the NRSV when inclusive language is used. It allows the argument that as St Paul's writings are heavily conditioned by the male authority assumptions of his culture, certain passages relating to women opening their mouths can be interpreted as culture-specific directions...
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
and in the process given yourself a few other translation headaches as well, eg next time I read "huios" in Greek am I going to translate it as "son" or "child"? Why or why not? You get the picture.
This is the weakest argument you've employed so far. I'm sure you don't need me to point out why, but just for the record, there isn't a reliable one-to-one mapping between single words in any two languages with which I'm familiar, many words have more than one meaning that are completely incompatible with each other, and context is of huge importance in determining the precise meaning of a word.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
If individuals feel marginalised or oppressed because language has changed its meaning, then
I agree that the language should change (where there's a good alternative). But that's not an ideology that you're addressing.
You're arguing with Gordon Cheng over whether his approval of male-gender-language is ideological. I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that ? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet ?
Best wishes to you (personally),
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
This whole argument is somewhat pointless because, whatever we feel about the PC of a word, it can and will be changed. Consider what "dial" really means now with push button phones, or "clockwise" with digital clocks. We'll probably hang on to these anachronisms because there is no ownership or feelings attached. But what about "gay" as used by Shakespeare and now cannot be used in English Lit classes without a teen fit?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable? I don't get that. Why not a simple: "I'm sorry—normally when we feed people bread they don't throw up" followed by business as usual.
Because – in the case of ‘the bread of life’ - you are translating a metaphor. You therefore want the metaphor to have the impact intended by the original speaker. I think Peronel’s point about the ants explains it perfectly well.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
No, it attempts to address everybody. He who has ears to hear, let him hear quote:
when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
You’re just playing with words here. The 'ideology' is that all people are of equal value in the eyes of God, you can call that anti-sexism if you want, I call it part of my Faith.
You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people who support the status quo aren’t being 'ideological', whereas those who challenge it are. This is breathtakingly naïve. Like those people who say: “I’m not political, I always vote Conservative.” quote:
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
So, for example, the anti-slavery lobby should just have focused on helping individual slaves to escape, or on trying to buy individual slaves, rather than campaigning at a structural level for the abolition of slavery?
--------------------
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
|
|
Peronel
The typo slayer
# 569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
Why? Given sexism is denying women opportunity based on their gender, why should oppossing that be worrying?
quote:
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that ? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet ?
I've repeatedly said I'm not trying to speak for all women. I've repeatedly said not all women will feel this way. I've repeatedly said this is how I feel, this is what I experience.
If you're going to take issue with me, then please do me the courtesy of taking issue with what I've actually said.
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
No, this is quite right and I'm sorry for my sarcasm. But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant. Which helped them understand the Bible without needing the analogy translated for them—Israelites eating Arnott's SAOs and so on and so forth...
I see. SO it's all right that the Gospel is meaningless until you take the right course in interpretation and a couple of lessons in interpreting obsolete language use?
I would have thought that was rather like going about putting beams in peoples' eyes, who had previously had clear sight. Or deliberately erecting obstacles to faith.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Greyface:
quote:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
A thought assails.
If the word 'sons' is supposed to indicate 'child who will inherit' as opposed to daughters, who couldn't then the word takes on a feminist meaning. If women in antiquity couldn't inherit then being designated God's sons indiscriminately of gender says something about God. To wit that he is not concerned with the barriers that the secular world puts up. In the Kingdom of God, Jews can join posh golf clubs and no-one cares about black and white people using the same drinking fountains.
Now if you translate 'son' as 'child' you lose that nuance. The world of antiquity was Patriarchal and oppressive. If you translate the Bible to make it look as if everyone concerned had the same mindset as Baroness Shirley Williams you miss the ways in which that world is subverted by the coming of Christ.
Not that I am dogmatically opposed to inclusive language. And I am slightly embarassed to find myself in the same camp as Gordon. But the fact remains that it is often the 'otherness' of the Bible which can point to its liberatory nature.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I think that most of us would agree that, where the Bible is concerned, what matters is that the translation should be as accurate as possible. Part of the problem though, is how to accurately translate a metaphor. Is the phrase 'sons of God' metaphorical or a literal?
[ 10. June 2005, 16:44: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
Problem number one with your understanding of feminism--there is no one feminist agenda, because there is no one feminism. It seems to me that you are like others on this thread reacting to the feminist of 30-40 years ago, not the feminist movement and various strands of feminist thought as they exist today. Lots of feminist thinkers realized quite a while ago that addressing women as a group with no differences among them, no differences of color or class, for instance, was very problematic.
quote:
You're arguing with Gordon Cheng over whether his approval of male-gender-language is ideological. I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
Agree with Peronel on this. Anti-sexism is part of my faith, grounded in the belief that women and men alike are created in the image of God.
quote:
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
If I know people as individuals, I can love them as individuals. But I deal with strangers nearly every day, and I am supposed to love them too, and while it sounds rather colder than I mean it to sound, I would say insofar as I succeed in loving them I love them as members of a class--they are human beings.
quote:
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet?
Peronel and I are both individuals and members of a number of different classes--we're women, we're Christians, we each belong to a socio-economic class, we each are classified by our societies into a racial group. We can make statements about what we think is in the interests of Christians without having all other Christians agree with us--no one would say, "Hey, you can't say those things at all because you don't speak for all Christians."
Yes, it is ultimately in the interest of all women that they be freed from the many varied forms of oppression under which they live. The suffragists spoke in the interests of all women when they said that women should get the vote, despite the fact that some women disagreed with them. We don't look back now and say the suffragists were wrong in what they said. Today the fact that there are women who disagree with me, Peronel, Qlib, Nicodemia, Avalon (hi Avalon, and thanks for the vote of confidence), et alia, does not perforce mean we are wrong in what we're saying or wrong to say it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I have been told that the first Inuktitut translation of the New Testament translated "Lamb of God" into "God's special thing that looks like a caribou calf" -- probably missing the entire point.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I'm no linguist, but I thought it was a given that there can be no "perfect" translation of any text. No two languages work in exactly the same way; there are nuances and undertones that will never be expressed completely. And that is ANY text - once we start talking about God language becomes even more problematic.
For instance, I am not a "son" of God according to any of the normal meanings of the word. Biologically and legally I know whose son I am. But "Son of God" is a metaphor that is useful as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor. In the same way, stating I am an "heir" of God is only helpful up to a point. The normal meaning of the word is "one who inherits after the death of a parent". Given that God is not likely to die any time soon this particular line of imagery does not mean a lot to me personally. If you find it helpful, great - but you still need to acknowledge it is an image rather than a direct description.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I read once years ago that when the Bible was translated into a language spoken by a land-locked desert people (sorry, can't remember if it was Arabic or something else), they translated "anchor" with the word for the thing used for tying up a horse, a thing that was driven down into the sand and kept the horse from wandering off.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
For instance, I am not a "son" of God according to any of the normal meanings of the word. Biologically and legally I know whose son I am. But "Son of God" is a metaphor that is useful as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor. In the same way, stating I am an "heir" of God is only helpful up to a point. The normal meaning of the word is "one who inherits after the death of a parent". Given that God is not likely to die any time soon this particular line of imagery does not mean a lot to me personally. If you find it helpful, great - but you still need to acknowledge it is an image rather than a direct description.
Good. as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor and so on. The thing is, that "son" has a contemporary meaning that is clear and apparently makes sense in the context, so why would any listener assume that there was a metophor in play, or a different meaning that was the right one? The normal meaning of "son" today is not "one who inherits" -- it is "male child". And, to deal with Gordon's position, using "son" as the translation no longer carries any implication of male dominance or precedence or authority either.
The problem is not with the Greek original, nor even with the 16th century translation when it was made: the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
But if you did translation in the secular world on that basis, except maybe in the realm of popular fiction, you'd lose your job within a very short space of time.
If you translate "son" as "inheritor", you're writing a huge amount of interpretation in along the way, and a monolingual reader has no way to judge the validity of that decision or assess the assumptions on which it was based.
That's the big big problem with dynamic equivalence Bible translations in general - they make perfect sense, it's just that they force the reader to adopt the translator's theological stance. And I have to say that is sounds from this thread that this may be the explicit intention in some cases.
Paul didn't write "inheritor". I suspect the words existed for him to do so if he had wanted to. He wrote "son", in a culture where that word had certain connotations. Once you start down the road of picking words to create the same effect as the original words did in the original hearers (like we really know for sure what happened inside people's heads 2,000 years ago...), you're on the short road to "David went into a cave to go to the bathroom", (early Living Bible), and we may as well replace "camel" with "Toyota pickup" - after all, camels carry connotations of "zoo", not "mundane form of transportation". And then we can talk about the rich man passing through the eye of the pickup, except that doesn't work, so maybe in this case the word camel should be translated as moped, and so on and so on...
The whole process is really an insult to the reader's intelligence. I expect someone to tell me that the above example is silly because while "everyone" knows that pre-industrial societies used animals for transport, "no-one" knows that gender roles have changed in the last 2 millenia. I just hope they don't expect me to believe them...
--------------------
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 John Holding:
The problem is not with the Greek original, nor even with the 16th century translation when it was made: the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
And in a sense, no word is accurate. "Child" has problems. "Offspring" has problems. "Heir" has problems. In fact, if we were going to be conducting this discussion about the Greek, "huios" has problems.
Callan picked it earlier. To use "Son" is radically counter-sexist.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To use "Son" is radically counter-sexist.
Only with radically twisted logic.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
What was wrong with my logic? ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Greyface:
quote:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
A thought assails.
If the word 'sons' is supposed to indicate 'child who will inherit' as opposed to daughters, who couldn't then the word takes on a feminist meaning. If women in antiquity couldn't inherit then being designated God's sons indiscriminately of gender says something about God. To wit that he is not concerned with the barriers that the secular world puts up. In the Kingdom of God, Jews can join posh golf clubs and no-one cares about black and white people using the same drinking fountains.
Sure, God's not interested in the barriers we set up. But I don't think black people in the Kingdom of God are going to want to be called "white" nor understand themselves as being white, and neither do I want to be called a "son" or understand myself as one. It's simply not who I am. And that's where your logic breaks down as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Now if you translate 'son' as 'child' you lose that nuance. The world of antiquity was Patriarchal and oppressive. If you translate the Bible to make it look as if everyone concerned had the same mindset as Baroness Shirley Williams you miss the ways in which that world is subverted by the coming of Christ.
Not that I am dogmatically opposed to inclusive language. And I am slightly embarassed to find myself in the same camp as Gordon. But the fact remains that it is often the 'otherness' of the Bible which can point to its liberatory nature.
Well, you oughta be embarrassed to be in Gordon's camp, seeing as he's advocating a subordinate status for women.
Yes, the "otherness" of the Bible can point to its liberatory nature, but there are at this point too many hurdles in trying to understand myself as a "son" to feel at all liberated by the notion. I'm a woman, dammit (and a deeply feminine woman at that, I've been privately advised)--requiring me to understand myself as a "son" in order to understand how I am saved is outrageous. Callan, you aren't required to understand yourself as something you fundamentally are not, so why should I?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Sure, God's not interested in the barriers we set up. But I don't think black people in the Kingdom of God are going to want to be called "white" nor understand themselves as being white, and neither do I want to be called a "son" or understand myself as one. It's simply not who I am. And that's where your logic breaks down as far as I'm concerned.
I seem to recall Paul describing Gentiles as ingrafted into Israel in Romans. Of course it would be deeply inappropriate and crass for me to go round describing myself as an honorary Jew but we can allow Paul the liberty of using the analogy to describe exactly what God, in Christ, has done.
quote:
Well, you oughta be embarrassed to be in Gordon's camp, seeing as he's advocating a subordinate status for women.
Yes, the "otherness" of the Bible can point to its liberatory nature, but there are at this point too many hurdles in trying to understand myself as a "son" to feel at all liberated by the notion. I'm a woman, dammit (and a deeply feminine woman at that, I've been privately advised)--requiring me to understand myself as a "son" in order to understand how I am saved is outrageous. Callan, you aren't required to understand yourself as something you fundamentally are not, so why should I?
Trust me, I'm mortified. However the madness has passed and I think that my position is closer to yours than it is to Gordon's.
I think there are two things going on in the inclusive language debate. The first is where people insist on using "men" as a shorthand for "people" the reasoning being, to quote Augustine (from memory), "that women are included under the more important sex". Now, I agree with you, that this should go in the name of intelligibility and sexual justice in contemporary liturgy and hymnody.
However when we use terms like 'Son of God' they are as much terms which are used by grace applied to me as they are applied to you. In this instance you are not being asked to consider yourself "a male biological child of a human father". You are asked to consider yourself as someone who, through grace, may partake in the divine nature of the Son of God.
Terms like 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God' are Messianic titles which apply to our Lord. When applied to human beings they speak not of maleness, but of our capacity for theosis. In this sense, both of us are required to think of ourselves as something that we fundamentally are not not because of our gender but because of our fallen humanity.
All I'm saying is that we should hesitate before chucking talk of ourselves as 'Sons of God' in a soteriological context on the same rubbish heap as, say, "We have sinned against you and against our fellow men". I think there are different theological dynamics at work.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think there are two things going on in the inclusive language debate. The first is where people insist on using "men" as a shorthand for "people" the reasoning being, to quote Augustine (from memory), "that women are included under the more important sex". Now, I agree with you, that this should go in the name of intelligibility and sexual justice in contemporary liturgy and hymnody.
Yay! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:
However when we use terms like 'Son of God' they are as much terms which are used by grace applied to me as they are applied to you. In this instance you are not being asked to consider yourself "a male biological child of a human father". You are asked to consider yourself as someone who, through grace, may partake in the divine nature of the Son of God.
And I am humbly grateful to be invited to partake in the divine nature of the Son of God--especially worded like that, as it doesn't ask me to call myself a "son."
quote:
Terms like 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God' are Messianic titles which apply to our Lord. When applied to human beings they speak not of maleness, but of our capacity for theosis. In this sense, both of us are required to think of ourselves as something that we fundamentally are not not because of our gender but because of our fallen humanity.
There's an added step for women, though. And it's a very, very hard step to take. Trying to think of myself using a term like "son" that is obviously and clearly male in the language I use every day means I have make a mental correction in my head every single time I hear or use the word that you don't have to make. That's the first thing that makes it hard for me. The second is that in trying to think of myself as a "son" I have to fight hard against the idea that in doing so I am somehow distancing myself from being female, something I am loathe to do, partly because as I said before, dammit, I'm a woman, and partly because to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people. To the professors who were so surprised when I said I wanted to go to graduate school, because it never occurred to them to encourage me, simply because I'm female. To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men. To every man who has ever demeaned me simply because he was a man and therefore could.
quote:
All I'm saying is that we should hesitate before chucking talk of ourselves as 'Sons of God' in a soteriological context on the same rubbish heap as, say, "We have sinned against you and against our fellow men". I think there are different theological dynamics at work.
Yes, you're right. But you have to respect also the fact that asking people to call themselves "Sons of God" asks more of women than it does of men and is for some women enough of a stumbling block to make them never give the church a chance to explain what the hell it's supposed to mean. I know what it's supposed to mean, and it's still hard, hard, hard.
[added stuff]
[ 10. June 2005, 22:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
The more I read this thread, the more I am given to believe that the use of inclusive language is imperative at this time and in this culture. And coming from exactly the opposite end the thealogical spectrum, I HATE inclusive language. It has always struck me as the tepid, bland, and weak response to an overwhelming and ecstatic human impulse to understand and relate to the Divine as Goddess. It is a compromise arising out of the mediocrity of a committee group-think which seeks to make tame a call to religion which, by all tradition, should have claws. It leads to awkward constructions in English, and its uses diminishes the grand, glorious poetry of the Christian liturgical heritage.
But all that being said, the idea that humans with external genitals have a privileged relation to God is not Christian, and it is time to stop acting like it is. Christ did not come to save men, and as an afterthought save women too. Repeatedly in his ministry on earth we are told of his reaching out to those who were not privileged in his society, and every single goddamn time he said, "They belong by my side too." He was emphatically not Confucius meticulously detailing the proper order for social precedence: "Youngest daughter reports to oldest daughter reports to youngest son reports to oldest son reports to mother reports to father." In fact, the two pillars of his message appear to this pagan to be Love and reciprocity of the Golden Rule.
And so if a whole bunch of people are saying, "I feel excluded by the language being used in church", is it loving kindness to say, "No you don't," "Well, you shouldn't," "Actually, you're supposed to be," or "I know some people just like you who don't."? Is that how you would want to be done unto?
It seems to me, that if the cost is small and the rewards are great, then you make the investment in changing the way things are done every single time. Here the cost might be the loss of some fidelity to the literal texts (and that's moot), and the loss of some measure of the grandeur of the language. But these costs are insignificant: we still have the original texts in the original languages and they can always be our touchstone! We can address the institutional sexism in this time and in this culture, and when that task is done we can always return to the grandeur of the old language or address new textual issues. The Christian texts are hardy memes, I trust that they will be faithfully forwarded to future generations.
But an assumption implicit in all this debate nags at me. Why must there only be one correct language of God? How can there be only one way to speak about or to God? How can the language we use to think about and address the Divine conceivably be static and fixed? We've talked about the issues of translation and liturgy as if there can only be one correct solution to these problems now and forevermore. And that is patently not true. There is a truth in the word "son", a different truth in "child", and different one in "heir", and a different one in "daughter". The value in meaning of these truths will differ among individuals and among different cultures. Some of these truths will be closer to the intent of the person who wrote them. Some might even be closer to what God intended for this time and culture (though that's much harder to call). Some even might be essentially heretical. However, if they all separately each bring a few people to God, then why not say they all are of some value and can have their time, their place and their use?
As a poet, I am unsatisfied if my words cannot be read and understood in many ways simultaneously. It is clear that the more poetic passages of the Bible were written and read with that understanding and delight as well. The best, if not the most literal, translations evoke that poetic ambiguity hopefully in ways which are well understood in the current culture. If, however, a language becomes a barrier to some to reaching out and experiencing a full relationship to the Divine, then why are we even debating the use of that language? Love demands that we embrace and include.
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men.
Subordinate in authority, in the context of marriage. Not subordinate in ontology, just as the s/Son is not ontologically subordinate to the f/Father.
And within the church, accorded roles that are not subordinate, simply different.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The more I read this thread, the more I am given to believe that the use of inclusive language is imperative at this time and in this culture.
And I believe it is imperative that we retain the ability to express ideas that accord with certain strands of conservative biblical theology, although we may disagree with that theology.
It's a very small step from "is imperative" to finding a willing volunteer to do the enforcing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men.
Subordinate in authority, in the context of marriage. Not subordinate in ontology, just as the s/Son is not ontologically subordinate to the f/Father.
And within the church, accorded roles that are not subordinate, simply different.
Gordon, could you please list some roles in your version of Christianity that women are allowed to have that men aren't allowed, and then vise-versa. I'll stipulate motherhood and fatherhood on each list. Thanks.
[ 10. June 2005, 23:58: 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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
But all that being said, the idea that humans with external genitals have a privileged relation to God is not Christian, and it is time to stop acting like it is.
Absolutely right, and fiddling with the lexis doesn't have a lot to do with achieving that. UK schools are now wonderfully politically correct, children's programmes are fantastically affirming of everyone, and yet more teenage girls think that being pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen at 14 is a goal to aim for than at any time in recent history, despite the total absence of this "message" in any official media. The link between rhetoric and behaviour is not proven, it's just an unjustified extrapolation of a dubious French theory which, at its heart, is incompatible with historical Christianity.
quote:
Why must there only be one correct language of God? How can there be only one way to speak about or to God? How can the language we use to think about and address the Divine conceivably be static and fixed?
On one level, there's no reason at all, and, if some people want to worship using inclusive language, I don't have any problem with that. And, for texts that men and women have to subscribe to, making the texts as comfortable as possible for both genders to use is just common sense. I submit the Church of Fools statement of purpose as an illustration (although I wouldn't have wanted to write anything much longer without using pronouns).
It's the repeated claim that inclusive language should be normative that is silly and wrong.
Two words which I think demonstrate this are "worldwide church". There are far more practising English-speaking anglicans in the developing world than in the West, and that trend is set to continue. In a generation's time, Asia may well be in the theological driving seat. Like it or not, uniquely Western theological concerns will soon be a minor specialist-interest branch of mainstream Christianity.
If you made linguistic decisions about liturgy on a democratic basis, countries like Nigeria and Uganda would have a huge vote compared to most Western countries. At a guess, making language gender-neutral is not on their agenda, and let's not even start down the sexual orientation road. So should Western churches accept liturgy as defined by African theologians? Should Africans be forced to use our more enlightened liturgies in the best colonial traditions? Should each part of English-speaking anglicanism have their own liturgy? If so, should a predominantly African congregation in London use the Western or the African liturgy? How about if the Africans are second-generation British? What about if there is a mix of culturally African and culturally European Africans in the congregation? ... and if African and European congregations who speak the same language the rest of the week cannot worship together on Sunday, what does that proclaim to the world about the universal Church? Does it mean that single race congregations were a great plan after all?
And it's not as if this is a brand new problem. Paul spent his whole ministry trying to make multicultural congregations work - that's where the "adopted sons" rhetoric in Galatians is heading. The church in Corinth was as cosmopolitan as any inner city church you will find today. Gender roles varied widely between Roman, Greek, Jewish and the various pagan cultures he rubbed up against. Paul is not an armchair missiologist, he's a multilingual, cross-cultural missionary. We know he could do "gentile-speak" from Acts 17, for example.
But he chooses to write all his letters drawing heavily on Jewish imagery. I'd suggest that he does so because, if you are going to have one normative mode of expression, making it the same one that the Bible uses (the OT in his case) is the only way to go. If he had opted for, say, Roman culture as the linguistically normative one, every culture since would have had a lot more trouble working out what he was talking about, because we'd all need to untangle two lots of ancient cultures. And if he'd gone for a radical rewrite of the lexis for the Romans, the Corinthians (who, by this model, would have had several ethnically pure congregations), the Philippians, and so on, we wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of working out what was going on, and there would have been very little possibility of synergy between 1st Century congregations.
Now if we wanted a change that everyone could surely agree on, across cultures and continents, it would be that slavery is definitely bad. It's an urgent, contemporary problem. So are we going to rewrite Jesus' and Paul's statements and metaphors that draw on the imagery of slavery to conform to, say, French employment law? Wouldn't that be liberating for the oppressed everywhere? If not, why not, apart from the fact that we don't have many slaves arguing their case here or in denominational quangos?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
It's the repeated claim that inclusive language should be normative that is silly and wrong.
Have you read the last eight pages? If not this is a very lazy statement to make. If you have, this seems to be an incredibly arrogant comment (desperately trying to find Purgatorial language to use at this point).
--------------------
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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
]Gordon, could you please list some roles in your version of Christianity that women are allowed to have that men aren't allowed, and then vise-versa. I'll stipulate motherhood and fatherhood on each list. Thanks.
That's a good start. Plus men ought not to be allowed anywhere near the cooking of risotto as a general rule, and my old housemate 'Garibaldi' Prideaux shouldn't even be trusted to prepare WeetBix without adequate supervision.
Seriously, though, I don't see that the New testament lays down huge limitations. Men can't be wives and mothers, women can't be husbands and fathers. Apart from that, whatever limitations you consider 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 to be placing on roles would need to be taken into account, and I can't think of much else.
I certainly can't see why women shouldn't be allowed to lead communion.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
At the risk of having all you scholarly beings descending on my head with sarcasm and ridicule, I would point out that John, in his Gospel, chap 1:12 usesthe Greek word tekna, calling us 'children of God'. As far as I can see, and I am not a Greek scholar, this means children of either sex. No nonsense about sons including daughters.
Furthermore, the same John (or a different one, whichever) several times uses the term 'children of God' in his first letter. tekna again.
If the 'beloved disciple' can use non-sexist language, surely Gordon/the church/you and me, can?
As a tangent, I have always been of the opinion that Paul, brought up as he was, a legalistic Jew, had great difficulty in trying to remember that women weren't second class people, let alone citizens. He tries, but you can see his basic beliefs creeping through in lots of places.
Sexism began when the early medieval church fathers and others let their beliefs that women were dangerous, unreliable, fit only for breeding and hadn't got big enough brains to understand anything, seep into their writings, creeds and liturgies.
As Ruth says, 'I'm a woman, dammit' and its time this was recognised in the church as well as the world.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lyda Rose
(Slightly tongue in cheek)
I think Gordon means leadership and headship but is a bit too shy to say it, taking refuge behind risotto.
ALthough not invited, I think the NT confirms my view of my wife that she can be trusted with any responsibility she has the gifts, talents and desire for. Actually, I think she can be trusted with a lot more than that.
My wife says I should not be trusted with the identification of dust or the finding of anything in a hurry - but I can't find any scriptural justification for these assertions. Though she is right on both counts.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Sexism began when the early medieval church fathers and others let their beliefs that women were dangerous, unreliable, fit only for breeding and hadn't got big enough brains to understand anything, seep into their writings, creeds and liturgies.
Wasn't there a council where they voted on whether women had souls? It was, I understand, a very close vote of something like 52% in favour of the idea but the rest against it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The link between rhetoric and behaviour is not proven, it's just an unjustified extrapolation of a dubious French theory which, at its heart, is incompatible with historical Christianity.
Does this justify wrong, misleading rhetoric? And what of James' description of the power of the tongue..... incompatible with Christianity also?
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
....countries like Nigeria and Uganda would have a huge vote compared to most Western countries. At a guess, making language gender-neutral is not on their agenda, and let's not even start down the sexual orientation road. So should Western churches accept liturgy as defined by African theologians? Should Africans be forced to use our more enlightened liturgies in the best colonial traditions? Should each part of English-speaking anglicanism have their own liturgy? If so, should a predominantly African congregation in London use the Western or the African liturgy? How about if the Africans are second-generation British? What about if there is a mix of culturally African and culturally European Africans in the congregation? ... and if African and European congregations who speak the same language the rest of the week cannot worship together on Sunday, what does that proclaim to the world about the universal Church? Does it mean that single race congregations were a great plan after all?
I don't follow the logic here; it isn't true that Africans want non-inclusive language in liturgy; the East African church, for instance, has never had a problem with the role of women in the church, and the liturgy used by the Church of Kenya is much more inclusive than the Church of England's. Even better in Swahili. And that challenges another assumption - we don't speak the same language always. By your logic should the churches all be encouraged to use the same language rather than diversifying?
And why do you assume opinions will follow race and prevent racial harmony? Why wouldn't we all pray together using inclusive language?
There are other false assumptions, but I'll stop there. I don't think this line is going to be a good argument against inclusive language.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Now if we wanted a change that everyone could surely agree on, across cultures and continents, it would be that slavery is definitely bad. It's an urgent, contemporary problem. So are we going to rewrite Jesus' and Paul's statements and metaphors that draw on the imagery of slavery to conform to, say, French employment law? Wouldn't that be liberating for the oppressed everywhere? If not, why not, apart from the fact that we don't have many slaves arguing their case here or in denominational quangos?
But the change from son to child, for instance, hardly changes the metaphor in my view; it's just a more accurate word that includes everyone.
The metaphors on slavery often draw on the fact that slaves aren't liberated - that they do anothers will - that they are slaves. Now if you actually believe Jesus only wanted to include men in the church when the word "brothers" or "sons" is used, yes we are changing things. But I'm not sure that is the case.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip>
I certainly can't see why women shouldn't be allowed to lead communion. <snip>
[Tangent, I guesss]
Now I don't share your approach to the scriptures, so far as I can see, but I am suprised at your response to this one. I've had to skip in and out of this thread so maybe I've missed something. But surely to "lead" is to "preside" is to "head", and therefore would be anathema to a "conservative" reading of the New Testament text? Certainly I would have thought liturgical presidency was every bit, if not more, a leadership/headship role as a woman, for example a Pheme Perkins or a Morna Hooker, lecturing a gathering of tautolgically male Sydney ordinands, about which I seem to recall you expressing reservations?
I am writing in a hurry from memory, so correct me where I'm wrong.
As it happens I hold no trunk for the belief that a scruiptural writing imposes a timeless standard on subsequent generations on issues such as order and sexuality. I see the texts as highly culturally conditioned.
[/Tangent]
I have utilised inclusive language since about 1980. Regardless of the semantic arguments so eloquently championed by Melon in particular, I see l;anguage as a flexible and discardable tool - if it's broke cease to use it. Hybrid etymological roots are a non issue - so what if a woird amalgamates say Mandarin and Maori, so long as it serves as a vehicle of communication.
If a word has ceased to serve as that vehicle - and "man" etc have long since ceased to be satisfactory vehicles of any but a gender specific meaning (regardless of their past history) - then consign it to ancient and historical texts as no more than a journey through the past.
This is particularly so for the Christ-bearing community, for whom language must always serve kerygma - (proclamation). If our masculine pronouns inhibit proclamation to even a tiny minority of the population - and I suspect womankind is not that - then there's a round bin beneath the ecclesiastical desk to which such usage should be consigned.
It ain't that hard.
In Australia, incidentally, I think the ecclesia is streets ahead of media on this issue - to my horror I hear and see the once-generic "man" and "mankind" used even by institutions like the broadsheet papers, the ABC and SBS. Come on, people - it ain't that hard, ain't that painful.
In fact I can't believe it has run to an eight page thread.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Is it superfluous to point out that Sydney seems to be an abberation in Australian Anglicanism as a whole? Certainly AA (if I may call it that) seems to me to take inclusive language very seriously indeed.
As for women leading communion, well it all depends on your priorities. I suspect there is an underlying assumption: celebrating communion - not very important - anyone can do it, preaching - very important - keep it to the men.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
