homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary? (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  16  17  18 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Is it superfluous to point out that Sydney seems to be an abberation in Australian Anglicanism as a whole?

Not superfluous, just wrong. The North West? Armidale? Ballarat?

Not the only theologically conservative dioceses around, but they are there.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.

Gordon, I don't want to take this too far into DH territory, but I find your blathering about risotto in answer to a serious question, followed by the glossing over 'whatever limitation you consider I Tim 2/I Cor 11' unnecessarily flippant.
Is there any roles that women can perform that men can't, other than those determined simply by biology (e.g. men can't be mothers). The list of things that women can't do (teach, preach, lead, have authority over their husbands) doesn't seem to be balanced out by a list of 'different but equal' things men can't do.

This brings us back to a point that's been made several times here: you may wish to use non-inclusive language because it reflects your theology. But you cannot then argue that this language is not offensive to some, or that they shouldn't be offended by it, since your theology is itself offensive to some.

S

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
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).
From where I'm sitting, defending a uniquely anglophone, uniquely Western, thoroughly (post)-modern approach to language as normative for all Christians also looks, um, <reaches for PC dictionary> humility challenged. As I said in my last post, it's a way of working, and it might even be appropriate in some cases, but to suggest that it's the only acceptable means of Christian expression in English is indeed, um <where's that dictionary?> sensible according to criteria not accepted by general consensus and, um, differently right.

quote:
Nicodemia:
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.

[snip]

If the 'beloved disciple' can use non-sexist language, surely Gordon/the church/you and me, can?

Of course we can, in general, and when we're referring to John's Gospel. But Paul's term - and indeed his entire discourse - in Galatians is predicated on ancient world roles. As I and others have already argued here, if you change "son" to "child" in Gal 3:26, you have to lose "neither Male nor Female" in Gal 3:28, because the "therefore" no longer makes sense, and it seems to me that this is a huge step backwards in terms of female emancipation. It's only when you see the culture within which Paul is writing that you realise how radically liberating his writing is for women.
quote:
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.
And, sure enough, having started down this route, we end up concluding that the biblical writers whose texts are less amenable to inclusivist revision are therefore against women. We judge Paul for not joining a movement that didn't exist at the time he was writing. You like John, because he says "child", not "son", but, actually, John says far less that is explicitly liberating for women than Paul (and, also, John's Greek just isn't that good).
quote:
Mdijon:
And what of James' description of the power of the tongue..... incompatible with Christianity also?

What about it? Of course words matter, it's the binary choice by which you either engineer the language to fit in with the most modern of preoccupations or you are an agent of oppression that I dispute.
quote:
Why wouldn't we all pray together using inclusive language?
Um, why don't all British Anglicans use the same form of words now? Like many other allegedly tolerant positions, what the above says to me is that the Church is to be defined in terms of those who accept the use of inclusive language, and that those who don't will be outside, which is OK, because it's where they belong.

What you say about Kenyan liturgy is interesting. I know absolutely nothing about that specific situation, so let me dig myself in even deeper and attempt to deconstruct what you are saying (which seems appropriate since the intellectual underpinning for inclusive language comes from the same stable).

Who led the teams who adapted the liturgy? Of the foreigners involved, what was their personal position on inclusive language, and what was the position of their supporters? Who financed the printing of the liturgical documents, and what was their position? Where did the leaders of the Kenyan anglican church train, and what was the position of those who taught them? Which overseas dioceses contribute funds to the Kenyan church, and what is their position on inclusive language?

I ask the question because, in France, I can take you to churches run (apparently) by Frenchmen, that are strictly tea total. By your logic, this proves that abstinence from alcohol is something the French church wants to do. What it actually shows is people are willing to put up with a certain amount of madness from their supporters (American and Swiss in this case) in order to get hold of their money. The unintended but nonetheless often disastrous results of Western generosity in the context of mission is something of which I have some experience, and on which I could say much more, but overseas funding in the Church is prone to all the problems you see wrt the IMF in the secular world.

And in 50 years' time, much of the Western mission money will have dried up, because there just won't be that many Christians left in established churches in the West, so that influence will disappear.

There are long and empassioned threads on this site relating to the statements of various African bishops about homosexuality. Their use of the English language didn't look especially inclusive to me. I don't want to reopen the debate about homosexuality per se, but I can't imagine a better illustration of how inclusive language is a long long way from being a basis of unity in worldwide terms.

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756

 - Posted      Profile for Nicodemia   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
originally posted by Melon

quote:
We judge Paul for not joining a movement that didn't exist at the time he was writing.
I didn't say anything like that! I just said Paul's upbringing was showing through.

What is it the jesuits say..... "Give me a child until he is 7..." or something like that.

(Male children, of course, girls would probably get all "feminist" about it! [Devil] )

Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Gordon, I don't want to take this too far into DH territory, but I find your blathering about risotto in answer to a serious question, followed by the glossing over 'whatever limitation you consider I Tim 2/I Cor 11' unnecessarily flippant.

Hi xSx,

Sorry for seeming flippant. It's a very serious issue indeed, and sometimes I struggle to find a way to lighten the tone while still trying to answer the questions I'm being asked. And by 'lighten the tone', I don't mean 'trivialize', but somehow get to the point where we recognize that there are real human beings interacting about real subjects. But sorry if I got the tone wrong.

quote:

Is there any roles that women can perform that men can't, other than those determined simply by biology (e.g. men can't be mothers). The list of things that women can't do (teach, preach, lead, have authority over their husbands) doesn't seem to be balanced out by a list of 'different but equal' things men can't do.

No, there is no balancing list, because it's not about balance. It's not a 50/50 split between potential adversaries trying to make competing interests match. It's two human beings doing what God gives them to do, and serving in the way he gives them. Men serve in one way, women in another. One of the things that will mean is that women have certain limitations placed on the functions they perform in church; as 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 either state or imply.

quote:
But you cannot then argue that this language is not offensive to some, or that they shouldn't be offended by it, since your theology is itself offensive to some.
Quite right, and I don't. People are offended by both my language and the underlying assumptions. That is a shame, but is not an argument for changing either language or assumptions.

There is plenty in this thread that I might choose to be offended by if I looked at it carefully. If I said it was offensive, people would quite rightly respond "So what? You wouldn't be so offended if you changed your mind and agreed with what we're saying. So deal with it, and look at the issues".

Which is what I'm trying to do, and I hope others will too.

[ 11. June 2005, 13:39: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91

 - Posted      Profile for HoosierNan   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, one of the most hurtful things in my growing up was being told all the things I couldn't do because I was a girl. And a lot of that took place in church. I was told that the only way I, as a female, would EVER be able to touch the altar would be to lay out and strip the fair linens and other altar cloth, and to wash the communionware. I would never be allowed to light the candles or say the liturgy.

I was second class. No matter how pious I might be, no matter how hard I studied, no matter what I ever did, I would never, ever, ever, not-in-a-million-years-because-God-said-so, be able to be ordained. And that hurt. Two X chromosomes, and I'm out of the running for that forever.

I'm sure that this experience is what has led me to root for the underdog in all sorts of civil rights areas. I have stood against racism as well as sexism. I really, really get all my buttons pushed when someone says that "that kind of people" are inferior and "not allowed" something that "the REAL people" are allowed, nay, encouraged to do or be.

Don't tell me that "the other roles that women have in the church are just as necessary and important" while you keep the place of honor and respect for yourself and other XY chromosome possessors.

The exclusive language of the church (language that excludes ME), and the practices of so many churches, have kept me and the people like me marginalized. There is a seething anger and hurt that is the background of the lives of people who have had that experience. Quoting black American poet Langston Hughes: "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or does it explode?"

Over the centuries, most women have sighed and "dried up like a raisin in the sun." But some of us explode.

And all of us would like to be grapes of blessing, instead of raisins or bombs.

Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, there certainly is no balancing, just men using God's name to impose their wills on, and puff up their importance in relationship to women. And then obfuscate the fact by a little Orwellian sleight of hand as in Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, and Love is Hate.

Equality for Women is not God's Equality.

In Christ there is no Male or Female (except where making decisions or teaching or leading is involved.)

--------------------
"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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

In Christ there is no Male or Female

That means that all have equal access to salvation. Not insignificant, is it—that all can be saved from sin? But it doesn't apply to quite a lot of things. For example, despite this verse, I still can't bear children.

In fact, there are all sorts of things I can't do, simply because I'm me. So what? God still loves me. In heaven, none of my limitations will exist.

I think lack of contentment is one of the things God teaches us to repent of when we become Christians—and that is so whether we are male or female. True, there is such a thing as godly dissatisfaction, but it centres on what God wants for us, rather than what we want.

--------------------
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      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I repeat:
quote:
...just men using God's name to impose their wills on, and puff up their importance in relationship to women.


--------------------
"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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I repeat:
quote:
...just men using God's name to impose their wills on, and puff up their importance in relationship to women.

or to translate: I'm offended by what you say, therefore it is wrong.

Unfortunately, this doesn't actually address the issue.

--------------------
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      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, that's not at all what she said. You really need to start reading exactly what is being posted instead of mistranslating it, misinterpreting it, and misconstruing it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there an "inclusive language" solution to the biblical metaphor that, as part of the Church, I am/will be part of the Bride of Christ? I'm not sure I want one. On the other hand I can understand why there is significant preference for replacing "son's of God" by something more obviously inclusive.

Common parlance really has changed since the correct recognition that gender-based language tended to reflect and reinforce unthinking prejudices. In a few years time, not too many people will be arguing about this - inclusive language will win the day, because it will reflect the language of the time. Translations which don't do this will be increasingly inaccessible translations (like the KJV has become, increasingly, for many Christians, and for the same reason. It no longer reflects the way people speak and write)

Reviewing recent posts, the major issue seems to be exclusive thinking, not inclusive language. ISTM that it is possible to defend from scripture the view that equality of worth does not imply identity of role. That is not my position. It is equally possibly to defend from scripture that the Galatians 3 scripture reflects, in its purest, most prophetic and most principled form, the glorious redeemed freedom of the children of God. That is my position and has been for more than 30 years.

Martin Luther King once said that he dreamed of a day when all would be judged, not by the colour of their skin, but the content of their character. Just replace "colour of skin" by "gender, social status, race" and you have a real basis for mutual respect, very reminiscent of Gal 3.

And if you swallow that, why in the world would anyone want to restrict the opportunity for service in the church community for reasons such as gender, or race, or social status? It is perfectly possible to look at the scriptures and say, on the one hand, "this is principled", on the other "this is culturally limited pastoral advice for an environment within which women were traditionally property and subordinate". Why would anyone NOT want to do that, given that it is possible to do so? That is what puzzles me.

[ 11. June 2005, 15:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

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

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
From where I'm sitting, defending a uniquely anglophone, uniquely Western, thoroughly (post)-modern approach to language as normative for all Christians also looks, um, <reaches for PC dictionary> humility challenged.

And you think the status quo isn't 'normative'? Humility challenge yourself.

Seems also that you're another one of the 'you liberals are the ones who are really being illiberal' brigade. We're having an exchange of opinion on a discussion board. As far as I'm aware nobody here is seeking to impose anything on anyone else.

--------------------
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
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the other hand I can understand why there is significant preference for replacing "son's of God" by something more obviously inclusive.

Isn't this assuming, though, that sons of God is intended to be gender-neutral? As far as I can tell from everyone else's responses, it's ambiguous:

  • It could be gender-neutral;
  • It could mean that everyone gets the rights of sonship, women too, and is therefore radically egalitarian for its time (Callan);
  • It could be affirming the subordination of women in certain circumstances (Gordon).

When I first started translation classes (as part of my modern languages degree), I was told that a good translator should aim to preserve the ambiguities as well as the clear meaning of the text. In which case, it seems to me the only real solution is to choose either "sons" or "children" and put the other in a footnote as an alternative. Which, as GreyFace (?) pointed out earlier, is what some translations do anyway.

(... Of course, you then get to fight over whether "sons" or "children" get relegated to the footnote ...)

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

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I think lack of contentment is one of the things God teaches us to repent of when we become Christians — and that is so whether we are male or female. True, there is such a thing as godly dissatisfaction, but it centres on what God wants for us, rather than what we want.
So every woman who feels the call of God to preach the gospel is pursuing what she wants rather than what God wants? Every woman who issues a challenge, such as Deborah did? Every woman who sets out in faith, as Ruth did? Every woman who risks laying down her life for others, as Esther did?

And this position ISN'T oppressive? Thank God that he has a bigger vision than you Gordon.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
I think lack of contentment is one of the things God teaches us to repent of when we become Christians — and that is so whether we are male or female. True, there is such a thing as godly dissatisfaction, but it centres on what God wants for us, rather than what we want.
So every woman who feels the call of God to preach the gospel is pursuing what she wants rather than what God wants?


No.

quote:
Every woman who issues a challenge, such as Deborah did?
No.

quote:
Every woman who sets out in faith, as Ruth did? [qb]
No.

quote:
[qb]Every woman who risks laying down her life for others, as Esther did?

No.

Something tells me you've not reached an understanding of my position yet, TW.

--------------------
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      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, just every woman who doesn't defer to the Sydneyite interpretation of proper womanly position (under men):

  • A woman can preach to other women or children the Gospel
  • Ruth clove to another woman's God- Naomi's and made her own decision
  • Esther obeyed her dad although how the little hussy is excused for not being properly submissive to her husband...?
  • And I guess old Deborah got special Biblical dispensation from the rules of womanhood, although since the Bible is now complete there are no other byes available for female leadership of men.


[ 11. June 2005, 22:55: 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
Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine*   Email Sine Nomine*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, what do you tell your three daughters their limits are in life? Judging from their father they must be bright and articulate girls for whom you wish the best. Do you tell them "you can be anything in life you set your mind to be...except..."?

How will you feel when one of them comes to you, crushed from being excluded from something she had set her heart on doing? Will you tell her "Suck it up, honey. It's God's will."?

I don't mean this in any way as a personal attack. I am truly curious as to how your beliefs will play out with those you love.

Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811

 - Posted      Profile for The Undiscovered Country   Email The Undiscovered Country   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Its very difficult to tell in this discussion the degree to which individuals' positons are based on 'I think the correct theological position is xxx for yyyy reason' and how much is just based on 'its not fair'.

There are also inevitably a lot of baggage and different conceptions behind the same phrases. For example, I would broadly agree with Gordon's position. However it does seem to me that some individual posts are assuming that that stance therefore means that women aren't allowed to do (name your issue) based on their church experience rather than the limited issues in the passages Gordon refers to.

[ 12. June 2005, 06:25: Message edited by: The Undiscovered Country ]

--------------------
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
Peronel

The typo slayer
# 569

 - Posted      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:

However it does seem to me that some individual posts are assuming that that stance therefore means that women aren't allowed to do (name your issue) based on their church experience rather than the limited issues in the passages Gordon refers to.

In great part that's because Gordon, although he's been asked repeatedly to clarify just what he thinks women cannot do in the church, or what he means by rejecting the ideology of feminism, has failed to give a straight answer. Instead he's blathered on about risotto. [Mad]

I do think, though, that his posts illustrates why churches who do not think women are subordinate to men should be careful about using exclusive language. After all, some church leaders do use this language with the deliberate intent to convey a message a message of female subordination. So how the hell is the uninitiated listener meant to distinguish those using this language to convey female submission from those who do not?

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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the other hand I can understand why there is significant preference for replacing "son's of God" by something more obviously inclusive.

Isn't this assuming, though, that sons of God is intended to be gender-neutral? As far as I can tell from everyone else's responses, it's ambiguous:


I think it is just mainstream Christianity to see that membership of the church makes us "adopted heirs", taken into the family of God - a statement which applies to all believers and therefore to women. In the sense that "sons of God" means that (it may also be taken to mean other things) it is clearly a linguistic "stretch" for a female to see herself as a "son". This is for me a classic illustration of how the use of gender-specific language can confuse.

You see, there is an implication in the language that in order for a "female" to become "acceptable" in God's family she must somehow take on attributes of "maleness". And dont think this is fanciful. In the non-canonical (and gnostic influenced) gospel of Thomas, saying 114, this notion is actually spelled out and attributed to Jesus - and is one of the reasons why I am very glad that gospel is non-canonical. The canonical message is that "males, females, slaves, free, greeks, jews" i.e. all humanity who are "in Christ" have membership of God's family. Why should the new translations not reflect this, given that colloquial, everyday, use of language today is, correctly, more sensitive to these issues? Translators have to balance accuracy and accessibility, sure, but I fail to see why this particular issue is even a close call.

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

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Something tells me you've not reached an understanding of my position yet, TW.
Sadly GC I think I understand it all too well.

--------------------
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
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I do think, though, that his posts illustrates why churches who do not think women are subordinate to men should be careful about using exclusive language. After all, some church leaders do use this language with the deliberate intent to convey a message of female subordination. So how the hell is the uninitiated listener meant to distinguish those using this language to convey female submission from those who do not?

I'm bemused: does he really think that this sends out a positive message about Christianity to the uninitiated 21st century listener? I don't know what his views on gays are, but the idea of women as lesser than men just reinforces one of the popular stereotypical negative images of the religion.

I expect his daughters have already been brought up to know what is, and is not, suitable for them, so the issue will probably not arise. If it does, then probably they will have to accept that that's how life is.

It is immensely damaging to think of yourself as a second-class citizen - sadly, this is nothing new for women. We have had to live with centuries of this and have battled for the right just to be ourselves, to express ourselves, let alone have education, to learn to read and write, to even talk on an equal basis with men. In some places in the world women still can't testify in court, or their evidence is only worth half that of a man. And count the number of ways that "woman" or the attribute of femininity is used as an insult. Even in the supposedly liberated West we still have some considerable distance to go before we are regarded as of real value.

I just hope that in his next life, Gordon is reborn as a woman, because I think it's the only way he's ever going to understand what we've been trying to tell him for nine pages. I don't think he's made any real attempt to actually try to see how life is on the other side of the fence and how he would like it - and how restrictive he would find it.

Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it so sad, that a message would have been so radical and so liberating to women in its time - is now used to bind and control.

but then men have been taking undue authority since the fall?

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, there are all sorts of things I can't do, simply because I'm me. So what? God still loves me. In heaven, none of my limitations will exist.

What has this got to do with the question at hand? I may not be able to be ordained because I'm me . This is, in fact, the case. I am not called, nor would I be much good at it.
However, this is entirely different to be not being to do it because I'm female . That's a decision based not on my personal limitations, but on the (supposed) limitations of my gender.

S

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, there are all sorts of things I can't do, simply because I'm me. So what? God still loves me. In heaven, none of my limitations will exist.

I'm not prepared to wait until I die to be able to start enjoying life on an equal footing with men.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
welsh dragon

Shipmate
# 3249

 - Posted      Profile for welsh dragon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In fact, there are all sorts of things I can't do, simply because I'm me. So what? God still loves me. In heaven, none of my limitations will exist.

Well one of the things women can do in the Anglican communion is join the priesthood.

In this life [Big Grin] .

I don't think the idea ever was that we should deliberately perpetuate injustice and inequality on earth because it will be alright one day in the sky.

We clearly have very different ideas about what the Gospel message means [Big Grin] .

Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
That's a decision based not on my personal limitations, but on the (supposed) limitations of my gender.

If I parse this correctly, then you are claiming that gender is not personal? [Ultra confused]

Perhaps it would be good to open a new thread on the question what "equality" actually means (not limited to, but including equality between men and women)? I think the question of inclusive language, important as it may be, cannot provide the answer to that. If we use inclusive language as a proxy for the much larger issue of equality, then we are bound to generate more conflict than necessary on the issue of inclusive language itself.

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wrote this before I read the last two posts [sorry, before IngoB's-crossposting]. I do believe that one of the profoundest differences in the perspectives expressed here is at the level of eschatology. What follows I think will highlight this.

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Gordon, what do you tell your three daughters their limits are in life? Judging from their father they must be bright and articulate girls for whom you wish the best. Do you tell them "you can be anything in life you set your mind to be...except..."?

How will you feel when one of them comes to you, crushed from being excluded from something she had set her heart on doing? Will you tell her "Suck it up, honey. It's God's will."?

I don't mean this in any way as a personal attack. I am truly curious as to how your beliefs will play out with those you love.

Sine, thank you very much for this question. Our perspectives on life are very different but I appreciate the grace with which you’ve expressed this. The question is also a profoundly personal question, and I’ve been thinking about it on and off all day.

I love my three daughters more than life itself, and would give my life for them many times over. That’s not sentimentality, it’s just truth. I cannot now imagine life without them. Their sadness is my sadness, their joy is my joy. The question of how they deal with the frustration of their desires is with me daily, whether in the minutiae of dispute resolution or the question of how they deal with the reality of suffering and evil which is the human condition. There is a sense in which I feel that my life is literally in their hands, such is the grief and happiness that their grief and happiness causes me.

May I address this question, however, as a de-gendered question? Which may sound quite extraordinary, coming from me and coming on this thread. But as I reflect on it, I find myself wanting to insist that we are bound together in our shared humanity far more than we are divided by any division we care to contemplate: Jew, Gentile, slave, free—or yes, male or female.

So when you ask

quote:
How will you feel when one of them comes to you, crushed from being excluded from something she had set her heart on doing?
my response (apart from the visceral sense of being myself utterly crushed and destroyed, with literally nothing to say)

is to see and to understand that this is the human question. It is a question grounded in our very creatureliness, in a world afflicted from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot by the sore of human sin and consequent suffering. There is no answer that lies in our power to provide. We are simply completely helpless in the face of our limitations, whether we ascribe those limitations to our sin or to our creatureliness makes not the faintest difference at this point.

May I also say that I cannot imagine what heaven will be like. I know that I will still be a creature of God, because “if anyone is in Christ, he or she is a new creation.” And I do know that we will cast aside our earthly limitations. I know that we will no longer sin. I know that “neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away”. I look forward to a joyful reunion with the little ones that my wife didn’t carry to birth. I believe that every desire of our hearts will be met in Christ. I believe that this can only happen because of the victory over sin and death that my Lord won on the cross.

I also understand that for each one of us for at least some of the time, none of this hope is of the slightest consolation as we suffer in the present evil age, and that the wise person who rejoices in the future nevertheless experiences life now as nothing more than grief, pain, suffering, groaning and trial—a daily crucifixion where the only possible comfort lies with a future (and presently unimaginable) resurrection of the body.

I am trying to explain this to my daughters and would very much value your prayers as I do so, because I know that I am not very good at it.

For some reason I feel moved to share with you something my eldest daughter (Matilda, age 6) wrote this week. I don’t know if I’ve really worked out what she’s saying but it means a lot to me at the moment. Spelling’s not fixed:

[Heading:]perpendicular
[3 pictures in a row: each picture shows two children, one sad, one dismayed. In the first picture, the dismayed girl is thinking “She feels sad”. In the second picture, two boys with the sun shining in the background. The dismayed boy is thinking “he feels sad”. In the third picture, two different girls, one holding a smiling doll. It looks like a third small child is playing with some toys. Again, the dismayed girl is thinking “she feels sad”]
[the text:] I think some ather school children get it even more then ups. Perpendicular hapens in some ather cantrys. I wish it didon’t hapen. Perpendicular hapens a lot at school with me. It hapens a lot with little kids. Some times it even hapens to gronaps. Perpendicular means you now how some one feels. Some times there sad, or happy, and of corse anrye.


Matilda tells me that her teacher was the one who told her what "perpendicular" meant. I haven't had the heart to tell her that this is a non traditional usage of the word, and perhaps I never will.

[ 12. June 2005, 12:46: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
That's a decision based not on my personal limitations, but on the (supposed) limitations of my gender.

If I parse this correctly, then you are claiming that gender is not personal? [Ultra confused]


I meant that there is a difference between things I can't do because I'm me and things I can't do because I'm female. Obviously, the fact that I'm female is an important part of my identity', but I don't want to be judged as a woman, I want to be judged as myself.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Obviously, the fact that I'm female is an important part of my identity', but I don't want to be judged as a woman, I want to be judged as myself.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Not really. If your femaleness is part of your identity, then it can't be excluded from how you are judged (I would prefer 'assessed and understood' to remove the possible connotation of condemnation).

--------------------
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      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me it depends on what you're being assessed for.

If I am being assessed on my ability to teach, then a number of things about me are relevant. They would include:

  • My knowledge of the subject
  • My ability at speaking
  • My willingness to give up the time to speak

Things it is unreasonable to assess me on include:
  • My height
  • My shoe size
  • My skin colour
  • My gender

Why? Both lists contain things which are part of my identity, after all. The differentiation is simple: one assesses things relevant to the task, the second set of criteria are not relevant.

There are plenty of reasons I should not preach. First on the list is that I turn into a gibbering wreck, barely capable of vowel sounds, when I have to stand up in front of an audience. My shoesize, my race and, yes, my gender, have absolutely no bearing on my competancy as a speaker. That is why assessing me on those is bigoted.

Peronel.

[ 12. June 2005, 13:27: 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
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find it odd that say an 18year old "new" christian would be preferable over myself (oxford theology graduate) or any other woman..... That whole - if there were only a few men in the congregation we still pick them....

What is innante about woman-ness that means they shouldnt preach?! I just dont get it.

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Why should the new translations not reflect this, given that colloquial, everyday, use of language today is, correctly, more sensitive to these issues? Translators have to balance accuracy and accessibility, sure, but I fail to see why this particular issue is even a close call.

Fair comments, and I would be inclined to relegate "sons" to the footnote if anyone were deluded enough to ask me to translate the New Testament. If you get rid of "sons" altogether, though, you lose the implication that the daughters get the same inheritance rights as the sons. Granted, most readers will assume that anyway, but only because they're importing implications from their own cultural milieu into the text, which we are otherwise told is a Bad Thing when attempting Bible study.

Having said that, I'll admit that just the bare word "sons" in English doesn't really convey that implication either. TBH, on the whole I reckon that any reader who wants to draw out such detailed implications from the precise wording of the text would be better off learning Greek and working from the original.

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

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that two main arguments have been developed for retaining exclusive language:

1) (Callan) The message of the New Testament is all about liberation. Only by continuing to use language such as "sons", and applying it to women, can we begin to grasp how radically liberating the text is.

This I find a fascinating line, and one I had not come across before. Personally I think it has a lot going for it, as it respects the nuances of the text, but it falls at a very significant fence - a substantial number of women are saying, "We do not find this usage libearting". In other words, this line works in theory but fails in practice.

2) (GC) In all our dealings with God we must not forget that one sex is superior to the other. (I trust I'm not misrepresenting you here, but I that is what I understand by: "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". Subordination is a very strong word to use in this context.)

This line I find abhorent, and contrary to the whole thrust of scripture. In particular how such a sexual hierarchy can be squared with the example of service that Christ gives us, beats me. It seems all about "clinging to power" rather than "emptying oneself and taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2, and many other references).

--------------------
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      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
It seems to me that two main arguments have been developed for retaining exclusive language:

1) (Callan) The message of the New Testament is all about liberation. Only by continuing to use language such as "sons", and applying it to women, can we begin to grasp how radically liberating the text is.

This I find a fascinating line, and one I had not come across before. Personally I think it has a lot going for it, as it respects the nuances of the text, but it falls at a very significant fence - a substantial number of women are saying, "We do not find this usage libearting". In other words, this line works in theory but fails in practice.

And maybe it will work at some later date, when women are living in a society that has more completely absorbed the changes that the women's movement has brought about. I think it's important to remember that we're not talking about liturgical or translational revisions that will live forever; this is a conversation that people will have again and again. Eventually I hope they won't be having it in regard to women, but there will always be something that's changed that will make existing liturgical language and translations of the Bible not communicate what they're meant to.

[code]

[ 12. June 2005, 17:09: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agree Ruth. This is why I don't think there's any need to rephrase all the references to slavery, as we live in a culture where there is widespread agreement that slavery is wrong. If I was translating the NT for a culture where some people still thought it acceptable for one race to dominate another race I would be thinking long and hard about what I should do with those images.

--------------------
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
Melon

Ship's desserter
# 4038

 - Posted      Profile for Melon   Author's homepage   Email Melon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
And you think the status quo isn't 'normative'? Humility challenge yourself.
Status quo in the last 3% of Church history? In one language? In one small minority of Christians currently alive? And not even all of that minority?

Inclusive language caught on about the same time as it became trendy to say "cool", "groovy" and wear flared trousers. If you want to believe that it's a fashion that's here to stay, and that will one day be accepted by everyone, feel free, and maybe you'll be proved right, but we'll both be dead before it will be possible to judge. Personally, I'm expecting a backlash. At the moment, inclusive language is not normative - just listen to how people talk in any natural context. Even in church over coffee...

quote:
Seems also that you're another one of the 'you liberals are the ones who are really being illiberal' brigade. We're having an exchange of opinion on a discussion board. As far as I'm aware nobody here is seeking to impose anything on anyone else.
We're having an exchange of opinion about the place of inclusive language in the Church, and I'm saying that making inclusive language the only linguistic option is clearly not entirely inclusive if it excludes those who cannot accept inclusive language. If you want to explain to me how excluding people is inclusive, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief long enough to read the post.

(Not sure where the bit about the discussion board fits in at all...)

quote:
This is why I don't think there's any need to rephrase all the references to slavery, as we live in a culture where there is widespread agreement that slavery is wrong. If I was translating the NT for a culture where some people still thought it acceptable for one race to dominate another race I would be thinking long and hard about what I should do with those images.
I had to read this paragraph several times... Are you really saying that we all need to use inclusive language because most of us don't believe in it? Are you really saying that if we all agree that sex discrimination is wrong we can go back to using male pronouns everywhere? Really? If not, what are you saying?!

Apart from the general foot-shootingness of that paragraph, it surely demonstrates perfectly how subjective and ultimately unworkable this approach to language is. Whether or not we need to "correct" references to gender bias or slavery depends on whether or not "we all" hold the "right" view. Who defines "right"? Who tells us when "we all" have achieved the "right" beliefs? As a point of fact, slavery is a live issue in many parts of the world, and in some communities in Britain. Anyone remember this story? Is it that parishes with large populations from ethnic groups where slavery is still an issue don't count as part of "we all" in your world view, or are you saying that we need a different liturgy for each parish? And maybe for each member of each parish, depending on their exposure to off-message images of slavery and/or gender bias?

If I was translating for a culture where slavery was an issue, I'd translate the passages just the same way as I'd translate them anywhere else, and then I'd encourage Christians from within that culture to engage with, struggle with, wrestle with the biblical narrative. Pretending that Paul opposed slavery when he didn't is not one option for a translator, it's just bad translation. It's willful deception. The starting point for any Christian has to be that the Bible doesn't oppose slavery - why is that, what does it say about slavery and justice in general, and what should our position in our time therefore be?

And I think the identical process has to operate with respect to gender bias. Paul tried to live out the Gospel as a man of his times. We need to emulate his zeal, but decide for ourselves how to live out that same Gospel as women and men of our times. The great cloud of witnesses are not expecting us to reinvent the First Century, or to disown it. They expect us to be both relevant and counter-cultural in our contemporary situation.

Applying the Bible's teaching appropriately to our situation is a big part of that process for any Christian, but they can't do so unless they can see what the Bible actually says.

In France, we have a marvellous law that makes it an offence to disagree publicly with the statement that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. That's supposed to keep us all "on message". What it actually does is keeps us on "no message", because it is impossible to have a discussion about the subject without someone being threatened with imprisonment (a leading academic was recently charged for saying in an academic context that the exact figures could be debated). If you make all biblical writers sound like Germaine Greer, you've actually destroyed any hope of discussing gender issues in a Christian context. Again, I half wonder if that's the idea, that there is only one possible right position on gender issues, and that it would be dangerous to let Christians weigh the evidence for themselves...

And of course those who hold a different view on gender roles can then take people aside and whisper "You know that the church has actually mistranslated the Bible's message to keep you from knowing the truth - I have a Greek interlinear Bible in my cellar...", just like the Extreme Right in France use the law mentioned above to "prove" that there is a zionist conspiracy.

There seems to be an underlying assumption that we're supposed to warm naturally to the Bible. My assumption is that there's something in the Bible to offend each of us - if we read what it actually says - and that the potentially useful interaction begins at that point of surface offence. "Scandal to the Jews, foolishness to Greeks", you might say. And maybe "male chauvinism to feminists, ultra-egalitarianism to traditionalists".

--------------------
French Whine

Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210

 - Posted      Profile for Scholar Gypsy   Email Scholar Gypsy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Emma and Peronel, for explaining better than I could what I meant.
Sx

Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Are you really saying that we all need to use inclusive language because most of us don't believe in it? Are you really saying that if we all agree that sex discrimination is wrong we can go back to using male pronouns everywhere? Really? If not, what are you saying?!

Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. If we all believed that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus" then we could quite happily talk about "sons of God" without anyone feeling discriminated against, or anyone feeling justifed for their discrimanatory attitudes. It is precisely because we are not in this situation that we need inclusive language. As this thread has made clear, there are still people who believe that women are second class citizens, whose roles need to be restricetd, and such people seize on exclusive language to bolster their prejudices. In this way the good news of the gospel is severely blunted (though never negated, d.g.).

As for the parallel with slavery, all I can say is that there is a widepread assumption in Britain that slavery is wrong; it is very much a dead issue. I had presumed that the same would apply in France, but you would know better than I. I stand corrected.

[ 12. June 2005, 20:52: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]

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

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Inclusive language caught on about the same time as it became trendy to say "cool", "groovy" and wear flared trousers.

Your grasp of British (?) social history seems pretty shaky to me and I’m also guessing from your later comments that you’ve read very little, if any, Greer.
quote:
I'm saying that making inclusive language the only linguistic option is clearly not entirely inclusive if it excludes those who cannot accept inclusive language.
First, we’re arguing that such language is spiritually and morally essential, not in favour of a law that makes it compulsory. (That’s where the point comes in about this being a discussion board as opposed to, say, an institution with powers of enforcement). I’m sure you traditionalists would be the first to accept that there comes a point when one has to say why one thinks path X is right and path Y is wrong. Besides, I think you’re playing word games here: it seems peculiarly inane to argue that your right to exclude people is somehow inclusive.
quote:
There seems to be an underlying assumption that we're supposed to warm naturally to the Bible.
ISTM that the underlying assumptions on this thread are that:
  1. when translating a metaphor, one should aim for something which carries the same idiomatic impact as the original, rather than going for a literal translation
  2. one should translate as faithfullly as one can from the original and not be unduly influenced by earlier translations which may have been clouded by the cultural perceptions of the time.


--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
First, we’re arguing that such language is spiritually and morally essential, not in favour of a law that makes it compulsory.

There's an odd inconsistency about this view. If it's just words on a discussion board, whereas the real power to change people lies when we start passing laws of enforcement (which seems to be what you're suggesting), then what's the problem ? But elsewhere I see you arguing that words have the power to oppress and exclude.

I believe that words are capable of changing the heart and mind, whereas the only thing laws are able to do is compel external conformity. That's one reason why this discussion is so important.

Tangent on the slavery question. As far as I can work out slavery is a historically and culturally diverse phenomenon. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it isn't. It's not clearly condemned in Scripture. I suspect we have forms of slavery now, we're just not allowed to call it that. In New South Wales, people sell themselves into slavery by receiving a scholarship when they study. They must then work when and where they are told, in some cases moving to other parts of the state. Alternatively, they may buy themselves out of slavery by repaying the scholarship. Just like patriarchy, the institution itself is not necessarily wrong, just the way it is so frequently applied in an oppressive way. Which is because of sin, not because of the institution[/end tangent]

--------------------
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      Profile for Peronel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, have you really just argued that slavery can sometimes be okay, because it's not clearly condemned in scripture?!? If so, you're really not helping your credibility.

That's even more illogical than argueing that men and women are equal but different because men can lead/preach/exercise headship, and women can make risotto.

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      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Gordon, have you really just argued that slavery can sometimes be okay, because it's not clearly condemned in scripture?!? If so, you're really not helping your credibility.

I also gave an example of contemporary Western slavery in the state where I live, which attracts no condemnation because it goes under the name "scholarship".

The risotto reference was meant to be light-hearted and I apologised.

There is nothing illogical with saying that people may be equal in the eyes of God and occupy different roles. You are ontologically equal to HM the Queen of Australia. For reasons of birth and heredity, you will never be Queen (unless I am making wrong assumptions about who you are based on your profile). Does the existence of a hereditary monarchy cause you to feel marginalised and dispossessed?

--------------------
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      Profile for Siena   Author's homepage   Email Siena   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, the situation you have described is not "contemporary Western slavery", in no small part because it is completely voluntary - a person freely chooses to incur an obligation to receive a benefit. If the obligation is not met, the benefits must be repaid. This is a contractual agreement entered into by entities of equal standing before the law in terms of rights and obligations.

Slavery is when one person is held as a piece of property by another human being.

Do you think it acceptable for a Christian to hold another human being as property? Or, to rephrase in terms you seem to prefer, is it sinful for someone to own another human being as a piece of property?

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

[ 12. June 2005, 23:46: Message edited by: Sienna ]

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
The differentiation is simple: one assesses things relevant to the task, the second set of criteria are not relevant.

Sounds good. Of course, we must be a bit careful concerning the question who judges the relevance to the task. Me, the community, a panel of experts?

quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
There are plenty of reasons I should not preach. First on the list is that I turn into a gibbering wreck, barely capable of vowel sounds, when I have to stand up in front of an audience. My shoesize, my race and, yes, my gender, have absolutely no bearing on my competancy as a speaker. That is why assessing me on those is bigoted.

I assume this is deep Dead Horse territory. Suffice to say that those who claim that gender is a reason why you should not preach have their reasons. And these reason are not based on your competence as "speaker" as such. This then leads us back to my initial point above.

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
It seems to me that two main arguments have been developed for retaining exclusive language

You missed the third argument, which in my eyes is most important: The original text should be translated as faithfully as possible (in the sense of "literal") while still intelligible in the new language, simply because only that allows everyone to apply their knowledge and interpretations to a common base. Assume we had bibles that say "sons", others say "children", again others say "heirs", some might say "sons and daughters" and finally some might parphrase this so that there's not one word anymore. What would we do then when trying to discuss this passage, indeed what is it that we do in Kerygmania when ecountering such a problem? We say "Well, in the Greek it says 'sons', but in this context that means..." Now, I want my bible (and indeed any original text in translation) as much as possible to give me this without having to consult the original text. That is, I want it to say "sons" and then provide interpretative information in a footnote, if necessary. This has nothing to do with what I think of using inclusive language, it simply concerns fidelity to the text.

quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
1. when translating a metaphor, one should aim for something which carries the same idiomatic impact as the original, rather than going for a literal translation
2. one should translate as faithfullly as one can from the original and not be unduly influenced by earlier translations which may have been clouded by the cultural perceptions of the time.

The "idiomatic impact" of a translation is invariably "clouded by the cultural perceptions of the time". Thus 1. is at odds with 2., what are we to do? Your solution seems to be that we should provide a new translation every decade or so, to update the "idiomatic impact" according to the changing culture. I think this is futile. Rather, the aim has to be to provide a translation which "stands the test of time" precisely by sticking close to the literal sense. Even the best such translation will have to be updated once the entire language changes too much, but that concerns centuries, not decades.

It seems to me that there's a consumer attitude to the bible at work here. It should read fast and easy, and one shouldn't need to consult footnotes or worse, commentary. Rather than contemplating the bible slowly, it's a bit of "Jesus time" while the ads are on. This is a far cry from the Lectio Divina of old, and in my eyes, wrong.

--------------------
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
Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine*   Email Sine Nomine*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Your response to Sine's question about your daughters was a moving testimony to your love and care for them, but it didn't really address his question.

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

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

Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Riv
Shipmate
# 3553

 - Posted      Profile for The Riv   Email The Riv   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Tangent on the slavery question. As far as I can work out slavery is a historically and culturally diverse phenomenon. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it isn't. It's not clearly condemned in Scripture. I suspect we have forms of slavery now, we're just not allowed to call it that. In New South Wales, people sell themselves into slavery by receiving a scholarship when they study. They must then work when and where they are told, in some cases moving to other parts of the state. Alternatively, they may buy themselves out of slavery by repaying the scholarship. Just like patriarchy, the institution itself is not necessarily wrong, just the way it is so frequently applied in an oppressive way. Which is because of sin, not because of the institution[/end tangent]
What you're describing here, Gordon, is indentured servitude -- a far cry from chattel slavery.

--------------------
"I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Ralph Vaughan Williams

"Riv, you've done a much better job communicating your passion than your point. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." Tom Clune

Posts: 2749 | From: Too far South, USA. I really want to move. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ginga
Ship's lurker
# 1899

 - Posted      Profile for Ginga     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You are ontologically equal to HM the Queen of Australia. For reasons of birth and heredity, you will never be Queen (unless I am making wrong assumptions about who you are based on your profile). Does the existence of a hereditary monarchy cause you to feel marginalised and dispossessed?

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

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

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

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

Posts: 1075 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
Let's pretend I am really good at numbers, and really good at physics, and really good at staying calm in a crisis, and really good at talking in a competant, in-control and calming way over an intercom, and I want to be a pilot. Let's also say that you don't believe women can be pilots and so you tell me I can't be a pilot. You've just told me, without knowing me or any of my abilities, that I can't be a pilot, when I know full well, without doubt, that I could. Even if I didn't want to be one, it would still be galling to be told I couldn't when I know I couldn't.

This is equivocating on "could" -- the two uses you give are two completely different meanings of the word. Clearly you COULD be a pilot in the sense of having all the requisite skills, but under your hypothesis, that is only one meaning of COULD and the other meaning (which you haven't really made plain, inasmuch as you haven't said WHY he thinks you can't be a pilot) is quite independent of it.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  16  17  18 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools