|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gender-Neutral Language and the Oppression of Women
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mudfrog squares his shoulders ready for the outraged onslaught of those who say that men are always the abusers and that women could never do such a thing!
Mudfrog, I completely agree with you.
I had an interesting experience with this topic a couple of months ago at a church home group. The vicar (who was leading) had us looking at passages in the Bible where God is visualised as a mother and then we had a discussion as to whether any of us view God as "Mother" rather than "Father". Turned out that quite a lot of group members had had serious problems with their human mothers and found the "Mother" imagery difficult to take.
The Bible does use both images for God, along with a lot of others as Ken has pointed out, so I think the church should use both images too. Different people will relate to one image more easily than to another, which ISTM is fine and probably the whole point of the imagery. But using one image to the exclusion of others that are equally valid and scriptural can limit people's understanding of God.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Amanda B-R
thanks - I was quoting from memory as I don't have time to wander over to the Cathedral library to look at the Sarum Rite!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
As a mammal, man gestates his offspring in his womb and then feeds his offspring with his own milk.
Do you think the above sentence is stylistically and otherwise correct?
The reason you can't say that now, is because we have been sensitised to the point.
Although it reads oddly to us, you might well have said that in the 1950s, and later. It was entirely normal to refer to the species we belong to as 'man' until much more recently. There was a well known television series in the 1970s called "The Ascent of Man". I think it's still available on DVD.
As an older person, the statement 'Man gives birth to live young and suckles it', doesn't sound odd at all. If I found myself about to say it, I'd have to remind myself that you're not supposed to say that any more. I'd actually though be more uncomfortable about whether one should use 'it' of the live young.
This review from as recently as 2005 takes it for granted that if one uses 'man' to describe our species, 'man' takes 'he'. It's only the specific context of gestation that makes one ask questions about it. That's really a grammatical question. If one is referring to a ship called The Admiral Nelson is 'she' still 'she'? I think the answer's 'yes', but I can see why I might feel unsure about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois
The vicar (who was leading) had us looking at passages in the Bible where God is visualised as a mother and then we had a discussion as to whether any of us view God as "Mother" rather than "Father". Turned out that quite a lot of group members had had serious problems with their human mothers and found the "Mother" imagery difficult to take.
Surely this also arises with the Lord's Blessed Mother? The logic of the extremist position would appear to be that we should start referring to her as 'he'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Mudfrog squares his shoulders ready for the outraged onslaught of those who say that men are always the abusers and that women could never do such a thing!
I'm trying very hard - but I can't think of anyone I know on the Ship - let alone posting on this thread who would be stupid enough to make such an assertion. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) But square away, if that's what you're expecting...
Anyway.
A personal favourite of mine, for an image of God, is the housewife searching for her lost coin. The story comes in the middle of the three Lucan stories he tells about lost things being found; the sheep, the coin and the prodigal son. While we tend to think of Jesus as the shepherd who returns rejoicing with the the lost sheep on his shoulders, generally it's usually God we think of in the parable of the Prodigal Son, as the Father. So maybe that's why I tend to think of God as the housewife - in the middle - sweeping the floor and looking under the sofa for the lost coin!
I don't have nasty associations with the word 'Father' used for God - and I'm very fortunate to have had two wonderful parents. I've always thought, anyway, it was a title meant to draw us closer to God as one who loves us as a good parent, whether or not that was our experience of earthly parents.
But I can understand the need to widen the concept of God as being merely male, which it's hard to do if everything spoken about him is - well, 'him, he, his' etc. However much we may intellectualize about it, our brains are more easily adapted, surely, to making the quick connection of 'him, he, his' etc to being essentially a glorified perfect bloke, with a fuzzy grey margin that might possibly pass for something 'other', so long as it's not actually feminine! After all, who wants an effiminate god, eh? I'm not sure we have the brain equipment to actually conceive of God, that successfully, as neither male nor female but somehow encompassing both and all. And so our minds naturally go to the easiest and most convenient pictures we are mostly capable of.
That's why the language we use is so important.
In terms of hymnology however, I think the words of hymns ought to generally remain the same, or at least as traditionally known - no doubt there are some worthy exceptions, however! I really missed singing 'the eye of sinful man' last Sunday, it having been replaced with 'through the sinful human eye'.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Although it reads oddly to us, you might well have said that in the 1950s, and later. It was entirely normal to refer to the species we belong to as 'man' until much more recently. There was a well known television series in the 1970s called "The Ascent of Man". I think it's still available on DVD.
Very good, it was too. Mind you, I once saw a critique of some of the language used by Jacob Bronowski in support of a pomo feminist argument about power-games and sexism in science. Seemed a bit harsh on the man who knelt in the mud at Auswich, picked up a handful of it, and said "This is what the application of power without any check in reality does to people". Words to that effect.
[BTW, I'm sure some of his language failed gender-neutral standards.]
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry to suggest this but what about men who have been hurt by women? What about women who have been hurt by their own mothers?
...I think it's right that we refer to 'brothers and sisters' in the faith; I think that where scripture allows it we should say 'people' (but never 'humankind'!)
But where scripture speaks of the Fatherhood of God, where Jesus calls him Father, and God has revealed himself to be the Father, then we need to stick to revelation and not one-sided 'inclusive' language.
People have been hurt by other men and women alike.
Should that mean we don't use ANY gender for God and call God 'it' instead?
Mudfrog squares his shoulders ready for the outraged onslaught of those who say that men are always the abusers and that women could never do such a thing!
You seem to be mistaken in your understanding of what inclusive language entails. Inclusive language doesn't mean substituting "women" for "men" or "she" for "he"-- it means substituting non-gender specific terms such as "people".
Similarly, inclusive language Bible translations do precisely what you suggest-- retain "Father" when that is what is used in the original language, but use non-inclusive terms like "brothers and sisters" when it is clear that the original text referred to both men and women.
As this thread has already demonstrated, the real sticking point is in pronouns for God. As you suggest "he", "she", and "it" are all problematic. Therefore the goal is to avoid using pronouns for God whenever possible. If done rotely this can be tedious, but, as I mentioned earlier, with a bit of thought and effort it's possible to say what you intended in a more natural way where the inclusiveness is seamless and unremarkable.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
You cannot refer to God as Father without saying he, unless you make your sentences very clumsy and keep using Father or that stupid 'Godself' word.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
True. The natural and correct English usaqe is "they".
I know this will brand me as a linguistic tightass, but I hate that. I'll freely admit that it's unreasonable of me, but it just bugs me.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
True. The natural and correct English usaqe is "they".
I know this will brand me as a linguistic tightass, but I hate that. I'll freely admit that it's unreasonable of me, but it just bugs me.
Me too. In my own writing I use "he or she". It may sound a little stilted but at least it's grammatical.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
with a bit of thought and effort it's possible to say what you intended in a more natural way where the inclusiveness is seamless and unremarkable.
Amen!
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You cannot refer to God as Father without saying he, unless you make your sentences very clumsy and keep using Father or that stupid 'Godself' word.
If you're using an explicitly masculine image for God such as "Father", naturally you will use "he". The point there, as mentioned several times already, is to follow the biblical example and use multiple images for God, including feminine ones. As you pointed out, different people have different experiences, and will respond to those images differently. Having diverse images reflects that reality.
Your assumption, though, that avoiding pronouns for God means that you must tediously repeat the same name over and over or use the awkward "Godself" is incorrect. When that happens-- and it does a lot-- its a reflection of lazy, unimaginative writing-- where one simply takes their old gender-specific document and does a word substitution. As I said before, the problem there primarily is that it draws too much attention to itself-- it's too obvious-- so that if your point is anything other than "God is not a male" you've lost your reader/listener.
But it is, actually, quite possible to take the time and effort to write well, to vary your sentence construction and names for God to avoid pronouns w/o endless repetition. Good writers do so all the time. If you are unaware of it, it's because they've done their job-- made their point w/o making inclusive language the sole message being sent.
I serve on the candidates committee (CPM) for my Presbytery. All of our candidates are required to write a gender-inclusive statement of faith. I've read 100s of them over the years, spanning the breadth of the spectrum described above.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But where scripture speaks of the Fatherhood of God, where Jesus calls him Father, and God has revealed himself to be the Father, then we need to stick to revelation and not one-sided 'inclusive' language.
As this thread has already demonstrated, the real sticking point is in pronouns for God. As you suggest "he", "she", and "it" are all problematic. Therefore the goal is to avoid using pronouns for God whenever possible.
The trouble is that the Christian God is demonstrably male, because that, according to the orthodox Christian, is how things are; if you make God androgynous, then you are creating a different religion with a different understanding of God and the created universe, one which a lot of people happen to think is just plain wrong - there is no way, for example, that I would use a gender-free version of the Lord's Prayer, or to say 'Our Mother, which art in heaven...'.
One way of looking at it is in relative terms, rather than in terms of human gender - God the Father is male with respect to the created universe, and the universe is female with respect to God the Father. Or one can complare it with Pagan pantheons: sky-father (Zeus, Taranis) vs. earth-mother (Ceres, Deae Matronae, etc.). We're not saying that male is 'better' than female; we're saying that they are different, and that they complement each other.
But to change basic theology for what are basically political reasons (AKA 'social justice', or whatever) is just a complete travesty.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
The Christian God -- and the Jewish God, for that matter, are not "demonstrably male," unless you're a Mormon.
And as far as the idea of some sort of ontological "maleness" and "femaleness" (which is highly debatable) being complementary -- without a female aspect to the Godhead you've indeed created a male hierarchy where women are ipso facto demoted to second class. There's no amount of patronizing, pat-on-the-head happy talk that makes that not so.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
So the Christian God "demonstrably" has testes, male hormones, thick body and facial hair and a male-wired brain?
Sounds like God has been created in our own image.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The Christian God -- and the Jewish God, for that matter, are not "demonstrably male," unless you're a Mormon.
Jesus refers to God as 'Father' and that is my understanding.
quote:
And as far as the idea of some sort of ontological "maleness" and "femaleness" (which is highly debatable) being complementary -- without a female aspect to the Godhead you've indeed created a male hierarchy where women are ipso facto demoted to second class...
I have done no such thing, neither have I said there is no female aspect to the Godhead within the Godhead, or a female aspect to the Divine per se. All I have said is that I believe that God is male relative to His creation. Whether or not that has any relevance to how we order human society is neither here nor there, and is a different matter entirely.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Holy Smoke--If I understand you correctly, you would also say that men are female in relation to God. (I'm desperately biting back a quotation from 'Team America: World Police' right now)
[ 06. June 2012, 16:48: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
People have been hurt by other men and women alike.
Yes of course. And back to my little rantlest on the previous page about only using symbols for God that have scriptural warrant, people have been hurt by bread or wine or fire or kings or judges or lions as well. (Maybe not by doves or lambs or soap though) Do we drop the line about the Lion of Judah in case someone has been mauled by a lion? Do we skip the stuff about wine being the blood of Christ because there are alcoholics in the congregation (or someone squamish about blood?) Or Jesus as stumblingblock, just in case someone stubbed their toe? Or God as Judge of the Earth because an unjust judge has thrown an innovent person in jail or tortured them?
We have an incarnational gospel. God has got himself associated with stuff and things and people and animals. Inevitably that means we're going to be associating God with publicans ands sinners and things that hurt.
quote:
Should that mean we don't use ANY gender for God and call God 'it' instead?
Yes probably except that "it" in English carries overtones of impersonality, also wrong, so we are sort of stuck.
Would be much easier in KiSwahil or any other standard Bantu language, where there are about a dozen different grammatical grammatical genders (AKA noun classes) but they have no implications of sex.
They categorise nouns as alive vs dead, and animate vs inanimate and into many other various categories - so you use the same form of an adjective or pronoun to talk about men as you do about women, but its different from the one you'd use to talk about animals or plants or objects that can be carried or sharp things or rivers...
Or probably did once upon a time - as with all other languages the Bantu gender systems are in fact a lot more arbitrary and contingent than some enthusiastic philologers might like.
Or just use any of the languages that have no noun classes or grammatical gender at all. About half the world uses them. Like all the Chinese and Tai languages, and Turkish and Tamil.
Of course English has lost grammatical gender to all intents and purposes, apart from pronouns agreeing with references to human beings or other animals - which is precisely why we have this problem because those words now refer to sex rather than gender so we can't speak about people without ascribbing a sex to them. A a great many other Indo-European languages have also lost almost all gender, including Persian and many other Iranian and north Indian languages.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I once read a commentary on inclusive language by a Conservative rabbi, and his response to questions of God's "maleness" was -- of course God isn't gendered; that the language of Torah, the Prophets and Writings is the enculturated male-default language one would expect from the culture that produced them; that it was the best the writers could do to try and personalize a Being so far beyond their comprehension. And he also pointed out that despite this there are also plenty of female metaphors for the Divine in the texts.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But where scripture speaks of the Fatherhood of God, where Jesus calls him Father, and God has revealed himself to be the Father, then we need to stick to revelation and not one-sided 'inclusive' language.
As this thread has already demonstrated, the real sticking point is in pronouns for God. As you suggest "he", "she", and "it" are all problematic. Therefore the goal is to avoid using pronouns for God whenever possible.
The trouble is that the Christian God is demonstrably male, because that, according to the orthodox Christian, is how things are; if you make God androgynous, then you are creating a different religion with a different understanding of God and the created universe
Thank you for demonstrating so vividly precisely why this issue is important-- because some people really do believe this, some people really do take the words just that literally.
As LutheranChick already demonstrated, your premise, of course, is quite false. In fact, the Judeo-Christian God is "demonstrably" female as well as male, as we know from Gen. 1:27:
quote:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
The text itself goes to lengths to stress that the image of God is found in both male and female. It stands to reason that, while an "image" always falls short of the "primary reality", the reverse is not true-- an "image" cannot contain something not found in the prime reality. Therefore God must incorporate femaleness as well as maleness. The fact that we have trouble visualizing that has more to do with God's transcendence-- the mystery of God. And hence the need for images of metaphors, which, again, we have an abundance of in Scripture, including both male and female images.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Holy Smoke--If I understand you correctly, you would also say that men are female in relation to God. (I'm desperately biting back a quotation from 'Team America: World Police' right now)
That would be a corollary - but perhaps in the sense that a human father is more 'male' than a male child. Or that God the Father is male relative to God the Son (or God the Holy Spirit). (Which obviously suggests that there is more to 'maleness' than testes and chest hair). But a 'maleness' expressed in a paternal relationship, rather than in a sexual relationship. At least, that's how I see it.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Many Bible (and other) texts too are gender-neutral in the original but English translations import a gender reference into them needlessly.
One of the things that started to turn me off the NIV was when I was using my handy cheat-sheet facing-page paralel-text New Testament with Greek + interlinear + NIV + AV (us non-language-learners need all the help we can get) and saw how many places there are where the NIV arbitrarily adds male words to the English where the AV didn't! And there was nothing in the Greek either.
quote:
In the CofE's Common Worship eucharistic prayers we changed the ASB's 'born as a man' to the more Biblically accurate 'born of a woman'. One person lobbied the comittee to change it back saying the change was 'a feminist plot to subvert the Church of England'. One committee member (Michael Nazir-Ali actually) responded that it was not a feminist plot - it was a quote from St Paul. The complainant replied 'I don't care who wrote it, it's a feminist plot'
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
As a mammal, man gestates his offspring in his womb and then feeds his offspring with his own milk.
Do you think the above sentence is stylistically and otherwise correct?
The reason you can't say that now, is because we have been sensitised to the point.
Although it reads oddly to us, you might well have said that in the 1950s, and later. It was entirely normal to refer to the species we belong to as 'man' until much more recently.
No you really wouldn't have said things like that. They would always have struck people as odd
Yes, you got books and others things like "The Ascent of Man" or "An Introcuction to the Study of Man", but that was a rather pompouse frormal sort of textbook language and not used much in normal speech, and even then people would have avoided sentences like Dafyd's example. And they have been doing for centuuries, that is NOT a recent thing. (As can be quite easily demonstrated by redong a few old books)
quote:
As an older person, the statement 'Man gives birth to live young and suckles it', doesn't sound odd at all. If I found myself about to say it, I'd have to remind myself that you're not supposed to say that any more.
I don't want to sound as if I think you aren't telling the truth, but seriously, you have a false memory here. Yes you copudl just about get away with that in some kinds of very stilted formal English but I honestly don't believe either you or anyone else would say it in normal speech fifty years ago. And even in a textbook or lecture it sounded odd and better writers woudl avoid such things.
quote:
I'd actually though be more uncomfortable about whether one should use 'it' of the live young.
Though its much more common in English to use "it" of children than it is to use "man" in a context where only women are meant. Probnably not as common as it was, we're getting more sensitive to the word, but plenty of people call young babies "it" quite routinely.
Over a hundred years ago Edith Nesbit occasionally used "it" as a gender-neutral pronoun for humans in her books. Not out of aversion to gender-neutral "they", the normal form in English, because her characters often say that, but it seems that she thought it was a good idea.
And yes, it does sound odd to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
True. The natural and correct English usaqe is "they".
I know this will brand me as a linguistic tightass, but I hate that. I'll freely admit that it's unreasonable of me, but it just bugs me.
Me too. In my own writing I use "he or she". It may sound a little stilted but at least it's grammatical.
Probably ought to be a dead horse, but plural "they" is perfectly good English grammar. Its part of English, always has been, as long as there has been an English to have a grammar. But we've been here before. Often.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Holy Smoke--If I understand you correctly, you would also say that men are female in relation to God. (I'm desperately biting back a quotation from 'Team America: World Police' right now)
That would be a corollary - but perhaps in the sense that a human father is more 'male' than a male child. Or that God the Father is male relative to God the Son (or God the Holy Spirit). (Which obviously suggests that there is more to 'maleness' than testes and chest hair). But a 'maleness' expressed in a paternal relationship, rather than in a sexual relationship. At least, that's how I see it.
In that case, you would appear to be saying that the human male is more perfectly made in the image of God than the human female.
[ 06. June 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[The trouble is that the Christian God is demonstrably male, because that, according to the orthodox Christian, is how things are;
No it isn't! No it really isn't. That is not Orthodox Chrhristian doctrine at all. Or even orthodox. I can't even think of an unorthodox sect that teaches it, unless you count the Mormons as Christian. And maybe some of the more far-out American pentecostalists who seem sometimes to have absorbed some Mormon influences. Apologies if you are a Mormon - but Mormon teaching is not Christianity, and this is Mormon teaching, not Christian.
If you are not a Mormon and this is really what's getting taught in your church you need a word with your priest. Or hios Bishop. Becuase someoen coudl do with a bit if in-service theological education.
quote:
God the Father is male with respect to the created universe, and the universe is female with respect to God the Father.
That's neo-platonism run wild. Gnoistic guff. Nothing to do with Christianity at all. And no Scriptural warrant for it. Jesus is symbolised as the bridegroom of the Church, just as in the Old Testament the LORD is symbolised as the husband of Israel, but that's not the same thing at all as attributing some sort of neo-Platonic essentialist gendered scale of being to all that is, created and uncreated.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
hat would be a corollary - but perhaps in the sense that a human father is more 'male' than a male child. Or that God the Father is male relative to God the Son (or God the Holy Spirit). (Which obviously suggests that there is more to 'maleness' than testes and chest hair). But a 'maleness' expressed in a paternal relationship, rather than in a sexual relationship. At least, that's how I see it.
Sorry, but whatever you meant to write, what you actually wrote here is probably meaningless. And if it means anything its almost certainly heresy. This goes way beyond any scriptural warrant we have for our language about God.
And one of the main theological reasons why compulsory celibacy for priests is a bad thing, and why refusing to ordain women just because they are women is a bad thing; is that those practices entrench and promote precisely these anti-materialistic neo-pagan Gnostic heresies in the churches.
Yes, and I know CS Lewis dabbled with this sort of thing as well. So what? Wake me up when we decide to canonise his writings and put them in the Even Newer Testament, for those who can't put up with the Bible God already gave us.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
ken, I've come across views similar to Holy Smoke's elsewhere in the CofE: Martin Warner, the new bishop of Chichester would say pretty much the same things. I agree with you about them being wildly heterodox and having kompletely krazy implications for any systematic theology.
[ 06. June 2012, 17:24: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Holy Smoke--If I understand you correctly, you would also say that men are female in relation to God. (I'm desperately biting back a quotation from 'Team America: World Police' right now)
That would be a corollary - but perhaps in the sense that a human father is more 'male' than a male child. Or that God the Father is male relative to God the Son (or God the Holy Spirit). (Which obviously suggests that there is more to 'maleness' than testes and chest hair). But a 'maleness' expressed in a paternal relationship, rather than in a sexual relationship. At least, that's how I see it.
In that case, you would appear to be saying that the human male is more perfectly made in the image of God than the human female.
That certainly is what he's saying.
He's also saying that creativity, originaity and will are masculine traits, and feminie traits include things like being shaped by the will of a masculine other - denying a female role other than as a passive recipient of male seed. A falsehood that Aristotle wrote about but quite probably didn't really believe, and which, contary to popularly misinformed opinion, is not found anywhere in the Bible)
He's also establishing a scale or spectrum of maleness or vital energy with God at the top and the chaotic raw material of partial creation at the bottom - the waters the Spirit hovered over - which has men above women, adults above children. Presumably a "little lower than the angels" with various other animate and inanimate and unliving things down below. The scala naturae was very much a common view in the ancient world, and into early ,modern times - there are traces of it in biology up into the 20th century, but its not Biblical Christian doctrine, and not neccessarily or even usually associated with maleness.
All a bit icky really. Like those ancient Egyptian myths which had God or a god wanking over the unformed world and his spilled seed turning nto living things. Real Earth Mother stuff, quite literally. Makes for some fun poetry, but its not Christianity.
[ 06. June 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
In that case, you would appear to be saying that the human male is more perfectly made in the image of God than the human female.
I'm not at all sure that I would; at least, I wouldn't be using the word 'perfectly'. But I suppose it would suggest that the human male is somehow closer to God - and if that is the case, well, so be it. And that is basically my fundamental point, what matters is how things are, not how well they happen to agree with 21st century Western science and and ideology. (And don't get me started on cultural imperialism...)
And my faith, with apologies to Cliffdweller et al, is with respect to a paternal, male God, not to a gender-neutral God, and no amount of political lecturing is going to change that. And if my church starts monkeying with the Lord's Prayer to make it gender-inclusive, then I will find a more conservative church to attend.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Holy Smoke--If I understand you correctly, you would also say that men are female in relation to God. (I'm desperately biting back a quotation from 'Team America: World Police' right now)
That would be a corollary - but perhaps in the sense that a human father is more 'male' than a male child. Or that God the Father is male relative to God the Son (or God the Holy Spirit). (Which obviously suggests that there is more to 'maleness' than testes and chest hair). But a 'maleness' expressed in a paternal relationship, rather than in a sexual relationship. At least, that's how I see it.
In that case, you would appear to be saying that the human male is more perfectly made in the image of God than the human female.
That certainly is what he's saying.
He's also saying that creativity, originality and will are masculine traits, and feminine traits include things like being shaped by the will of a masculine other - denying a female role other than as a passive recipient of male seed. A falsehood that Aristotle wrote about but quite probably didn't really believe, and which, contrary to popularly misinformed opinion, is not found anywhere in the Bible)
He's also establishing a scale or spectrum of maleness or vital energy with God at the top and the chaotic raw material of partial creation at the bottom - the waters the Spirit hovered over - which has men above women, adults above children. Presumably a "little lower than the angels" with various other animate and inanimate and unliving things down below. The scala naturae was very much a common view in the ancient world, and into early ,modern times - there are traces of it in biology up into the 20th century, but its not Biblical Christian doctrine, and not neccessarily or even usually associated with maleness.
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
ken, I've come across views similar to Holy Smoke's elsewhere in the CofE: Martin Warner, the new bishop of Chichester would say pretty much the same things. I agree with you about them being wildly heterodox and having kompletely krazy implications for any systematic theology.
Yep ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
All a bit icky really. Like those ancient Egyptian myths which had God or a god wanking over the unformed world and his spilled seed turning nto living things. Real Earth Mother stuff, quite literally. Makes for some fun poetry, but its not Christianity.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
But again, Holy Smokes has done us a favor by demonstrating precisely why theology matters, precisely why this is important. Several posters here have suggested that inclusive language is a meaningless, unnecessary intrusion-- a solution in search of a problem. Holy Smokes demonstrates that is not the case.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
My question to Holy Smoke would be: would he (or she, since it is conceivable that HS is female) say that the man on the Clapham omnibus is closer to God in his maleness than the Blessed Virgin Mary is by virtue of being, well, the BVM?
This seems implicit in the argument.(And is why female Anglicans, lay or ordained, living in West Sussex, should be packing their cardboard suitcases as we speak, or else petitioning for Alternative Episcopal Oversight)
[ 06. June 2012, 17:35: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm not at all sure that I would; at least, I wouldn't be using the word 'perfectly'. But I suppose it would suggest that the human male is somehow closer to God - and if that is the case, well, so be it.
Then all I could wish for you is that you live for a week as a woman. I am currently reading 'Bill's New Frock' to my class of ten year olds (A book in which a boy wakes up and everyone thinks he's a girl) and they show more understanding than you do.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
My question to Holy Smoke would be: would he (or she, since it is conceivable that HS is female) say that the man on the Clapham omnibus is closer to God in his maleness than the Blessed Virgin Mary is by virtue of being, well, the BVM?
I have absolutely no idea, mate, I will leave that question to the theologians (who incidentally have no idea what we pew-dwellers actually believe).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
When I read phrases like 'orthodox Christian' I assume that an orthodox, credal, Christian systematic theology is being referenced.
It looks now as if you (I'm replying to Holy Smoke) are saying, 'Sorry, mate, I'm just simple Mrs Murphy in the pew behind the pillar. Better ask some theologian about that stuff.' It even looks like you're suggesting, 'If only the clergy knew what strange stuff we simple Christians believe!' It would seem that orthodox Christian belief is no longer the benchmark.
[ 06. June 2012, 18:03: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
It looks now as if you (I'm replying to Holy Smoke) are saying, 'Sorry, mate, I'm just simple Mrs Murphy in the pew behind the pillar. Better ask some theologian about that stuff.' It even looks like you're suggesting, 'If only the clergy knew what strange stuff we simple Christians believe!' It would seem that orthodox Christian belief is no longer the benchmark.
Well since I am not a trained theologian, I'm not sure what else I can say - I am just saying what I believe, and trying to justify it, when challenged, in terms of other things which I believe. Which is what, I think, you will find most other 'simple Christians' do. And no, it is not likely to come up to the standards of professional theology, or even of theologically trained clergy, and yes, it probably will be heterodox and inconsistent. But hey, we just pay the bills for you lot, so you'd better not piss us off too much.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Then, seriously, if you think that what a Christian believes matters, and if you care for such things as orthodox Christian belief, do go get yourself some decent catechesis. If your CofE shack doesn't have it, find your local Dominicans or something. Orthodoxy is my doxy--you really don't want heterodoxy to be yours.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So you are equally bugged when people refer to the Holy Spirit as "he"?
No. The problem is that all pronouns will be faulty. But dividing God into male and female bits compounds the problem. It's the partitioning of God into "God the (presumably male) Father" while the Holy Spirit is the presumably Female part that is the problem. It sort of institutionalizes the idea that the persons of the Trinity have sex and gender rather than somehow correctly erasing the idea that they have sex and gender.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
That is to say, I am not really bothered by referring to the first person as Mother (or like a Mother) or to referring to the Holy Spirit as She. The problem is always using Father for person 1, and She for person 3.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This review from as recently as 2005 takes it for granted that if one uses 'man' to describe our species, 'man' takes 'he'. It's only the specific context of gestation that makes one ask questions about it. That's really a grammatical question.
That's my point - in the specific context of gestation one does ask questions about it. But that's not because it's only in the specific context of gestation that it's questionable: it's just that in the specific context of gestation the questions become overt. The word 'man' carries those associations with it, and it's only where the associations are clearly inappropriate that they become clear to see.
The review you quote talks about man shaping his surroundings, which is a stereotypically masculine thing to do, and man ascending of course, again stereotypically masculine, but less about man caring for his young or his elderly. And the point is that talking about the Ascent of Man tends to sideline women and activities stereotypically associated with women.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So you are equally bugged when people refer to the Holy Spirit as "he"?
No. The problem is that all pronouns will be faulty. But dividing God into male and female bits compounds the problem. It's the partitioning of God into "God the (presumably male) Father" while the Holy Spirit is the presumably Female part that is the problem. It sort of institutionalizes the idea that the persons of the Trinity have sex and gender rather than somehow correctly erasing the idea that they have sex and gender.
God the Father has sex and gender, Jesus has sex and gender, so I think we're stuck with this idea no matter how we refer to the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And the point is that talking about the Ascent of Man tends to sideline women and activities stereotypically associated with women
(tangent)
In fairness to Bronowski I would like to point out that his choice of "The Ascent of Man" as the title for his series on the origins of civilisation was an allusion to Darwin's "The Descent of Man", which of course famously treats mankind as biologically equal to and descended from animals.
Darwin was very definitely using "Man" in the sense of "mankind". Of course he was writing in the 19th century.
(/tangent)
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry to suggest this but what about men who have been hurt by women? What about women who have been hurt by their own mothers?
Why is it that the assumption is that only a father can abuse, bully, mistreat, neglect the children?
There are many people whose experience of a mother is that they felt abandoned.
That was my point way above on this thread -- that the language issue is not about which parental figure was a good or bad image for you of God as parent, it's about who is God and who are we to God and each other.
If God is (primarily) male, the male human is inherently more God-like than the female, which inherently puts the male in a superior position to the female. Which is exactly what too many churches teach, by for example [see several ghostly Horses]. I'm not even talking ordination, in my growing up years women couldn't be ushers! Women weren't allowed inside the sacred fenced off area in church even when the hall was not in use-- only males were allowed there.
I most definitely grew up (in the Episcopal church) understanding that God is primarily interested in males, primarily values males, the official language and official behavior of the church said so.
The conservative churches where I live mostly still teach it -- there are males and there are subordinate beings whose job is to do the scutt work for the males.
And the reasoning is Jesus was male, God is Father, so obviously males are the important ones.
I suspect the USA is more like this than UK, USA didn't have the example of several female highest leaders (queens) who were as good as any man in that position; (many) men used to (in my youth and early to mid career years) boldly assert that women are fundamentally incapable of responsible jobs ("raging hormones".)
The church needs to boldly proclaim that it no longer agrees with what it was teaching about God and therefore about each other by word and example.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
ISTM that the question of God, Sex, Gender and associated issues depend on context. For me the basic theological position is set out in Genesis 1 verse 27: God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. On the other hand, to deny that Jesus had sex would be to deny the incarnation, though for me his gonads are no more important that the colour of his hair. It is also undeniable that Jesus referred to God as his father and himself as the son.
What for me is a problem in the father-son business is less the issue of sex than the notion of inter-generational difference, which is particularly marked in the art of Western Christianity: viz. the Sistine Chapel. I wonder to what extent such artistic presentations have influenced our conscious and subjecting thinking about relationships within the trinity.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
ISTM that the question of God, Sex, Gender and associated issues depend on context. For me the basic theological position is set out in Genesis 1 verse 27: God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. On the other hand, to deny that Jesus had sex would be to deny the incarnation, though for me his gonads are no more important that the colour of his hair. It is also undeniable that Jesus referred to God as his father and himself as the son.
What for me is a problem in the father-son business is less the issue of sex than the notion of inter-generational difference, which is particularly marked in the art of Western Christianity: viz. the Sistine Chapel. I wonder to what extent such artistic presentations have influenced our conscious and subjecting thinking about relationships within the trinity.
Funnily enough, Kwesi, I was wondering that too. In Eastern iconography, God the Father is only very rarely pictured - except occasionally as a hand protruding from a cloud. In Rublev's famous icon of the Old Testament Trinity, the three figures do not seem to be obviously gendered.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would have to say that in my church, where women are given equal ministry rights - and have been since 1861 (our current world leader is a woman) - there is hardly any interest among women members and ministers in inclusive language and feminist theology. It's just not an issue. Not even the hymns in our hymn book have been doctored for inclusivity.
It seems to me that we walk the walk while those churches where women are denied ministry opportunities are just good at talking theology.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that we walk the walk while those churches where women are denied ministry opportunities are just good at talking theology.
My denomination has ordained women for over 100 yrs. We now ordain more women each year than men, and many presbyteries, including my own, have more female clergy than male. Yet it is a vital and important value for us. It's a non-issue only in the sense that it's a shared value, one we are committed to.
So no, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
But I suppose it would suggest that the human male is somehow closer to God - and if that is the case, well, so be it.
Spoken like a masculinist happy to believe that God has willed him to be king of the castle. It has been pointed out to you now by numerous people -- people of both sexes -- that what you're saying is simply bad theology.
quote:
And that is basically my fundamental point, what matters is how things are...
It seems to me that what matters to you is how you wish things were.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
[QUOTE]Well since I am not a trained theologian, I'm not sure what else I can say - I am just saying what I believe, and trying to justify it, when challenged, in terms of other things which I believe. Which is what, I think, you will find most other 'simple Christians' do. And no, it is not likely to come up to the standards of professional theology, or even of theologically trained clergy, and yes, it probably will be heterodox and inconsistent. But hey, we just pay the bills for you lot, so you'd better not piss us off too much.
charming.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
am just saying what I believe, and trying to justify it, when challenged, in terms of other things which I believe.
At the risk of offending you by using a big theological word, you appear to be describing the practice of eisegesis -- in other words, trying to shoehorn your own subjective suppositions and prejudices and desired outcomes into biblical texts, instead of trying to understand what the writers actually said and meant.
This is not a meritorious practice, by the way.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Honest Ron Bacardi
quote:
Funnily enough, Kwesi, I was wondering that too. In Eastern iconography, God the Father is only very rarely pictured - except occasionally as a hand protruding from a cloud. In Rublev's famous icon of the Old Testament Trinity, the three figures do not seem to be obviously gendered.
We seem to be on a very similar wave-length, Honest Ron, because I thought of referring to the Rublev icon in my post, because to an untutored non-Eastern mind it is difficult to identify which part of the trinity each is supposed to represent. I am given to understand that their identity is indicated by their clothing. In any event that icon would seem to represent a more acceptable view of the trinity than the Sistine Chapel.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Here's a bit from Moltmann (sorry - this is from a big ticket theologian but as he's German he is in the only European country with money so I guess wo pew dwellers don't need to pay him...)
anyway....
Prof. M says: God as Father is Father to the Son and Jesus as son is Son to the Father
In other words (as Charles Read sayerth...) - the Father / Son images and language in the trinity are about relationship not gender.
Likewise the blessed Rowan saith: we do not look at human fathers to see what it means for God to be called Father, we look at God to see what human fatherhood might (aspire to) be.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Charles Read wrote quote:
In other words (as Charles Read sayeth...) - the Father / Son images and language in the trinity are about relationship not gender.
or indeed sex. But I remember our lately esteemed Fr. Gregory (pbuh) saying exactly that once. Maybe he had been reading Moltmann of course. But I do remember him saying "it's a relationship thing".
Kwesi - yes, I believe the clothing is intended to be suggestive of that.
[ 07. June 2012, 10:04: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Charles Read quote:
Rowan: we do not look at human fathers to see what it means for God to be called Father, we look at God to see what human fatherhood might (aspire to) be.
........mmmmmmmmmmmm. So how come we conceive of God as father in the first place?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
