Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000516
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Having sung 'humankind' instead of 'all mankind' (but got it wrong out of habit) recently, and struggled through all the Christmas Carols and other hymns which have been changed in the new editions (fortunately not 'God rest ye merry gentlepersons'), I still find myself in fits of giggles and not taking it at all seriously. Was it really necessary to change these very well known phrases, when we all know that 'mankind' means all people, not just men?
Are there really women who are up in arms about the unintended male bias in hymn words (as opposed to intended ones which is a different story)? Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
[Thread title edited for archiving.]
[ 25. August 2005, 04:49: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
That's me. And half the time, I'm not paying enough attention to the printed words to notice the silly changes. This is particularly bad in Chapel and Rejoice and Sing really went in for inclusive language.
Carys
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
The Church of England decided not to inclusivize the BCP - classic texts remain as they were. This seems to me (a strong advocate of inclusive language) the best policy - but if a text can be sensitively recast, that's OK.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
As for us all knowing that 'mankind' means everybody - well lots of English speakers don't think that and that usage has in fact been ambiguous for centuries!
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
I actually prefer the unreconstructed O hush the noise, ye men of strife and hear the angels sing and I said in my haste, "All men are liars" .
It was drummed into me a long time ago (at a C of E Junior school) that mankind meant both men and women and that hymns and prayers refering to man or men usually meant women as well so I've never felt left out.
I find some of the newer songs more dodgy with their Statement sung by men followed by (usually simplified) Pale Echo to be sung by the women.
A few months ago we had a song that starts Men of faith, rise up and sing, and the vicar reassured us that men included women; we pointed out that the second verse started Rise up women of the truth. We haven't had that one since.
Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on
:
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!
Many Regards
John
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!
Many Regards
John
There's nothing really wrong with singing about people or humankind. However, people and humankind won't scan or rhyme into hymns which originally had 'mankind'. This disrupts the flow (even if everyone remembers the 'right' words) and, I find, draws more attention to how it's been changed and annoys me far more than non-gender-inclusive language.
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
S
[ 04. June 2005, 20:13: Message edited by: xSx ]
Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on
:
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-womens ordination, equal pay & conditions etc. but think that this assualt on our language was a step too far.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
man mankind doesnt always include women....
i usually think "Man "refers to men.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
It's simply that people are so used to it that it's become accepted.
I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.
And yes, I do sometimes get annoyed when I hear terms like "mankind" or "chairman" (or even "Early Man"). They do feel exclusive. Women have been invisible for long enough. I'd use words like "humanity" or "chair" or "chairwoman" (if the person was female) and "Early Humans".
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Yes, we say, 'for us and our salvation' and I think most of us have got out of the habit of accidentally inserting the word 'men' out of habit.
I also wonder about why we now have to say: 'It is right to give thanks and praise' rather than 'it is right to give Him thanks and praise'. All the other references in Common Worship are to God being 'He', so why change that one?
Although it strikes me as very funny when we have to sing a gender-neutral phrase, and it bugs the choirmaster no end , if these phrases continue to be used then the next generation (the ones who are just being born now) will consider them to be the normal ones, assuming they still go to church and hear hymns sung. (Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
I agree with Charles - modern hymns/choruses should be written in inclusive language. They ought to reflect language as it is used today, to say things that need saying today.
Where you have old hymns that have survived (and plenty haven't) because they still something relevant I personally think they should be left alone. There are many examples, some already quoted in this thread, of the clumsy tinkering that has been done to "fix" things. As a result you end up with something awkward that draws attention to itself. An Australian friend told me that one hymn book over there has turned "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" into "Dear Loving Parent of Us All", which is no improvement in my humble opinion.
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.
I get a similar jolt when I read Mousetheif's posts where he refers to God as She. God called 'she' calls to mind a feminine deity far more than God being called 'he' calls to mind a maculine one. I suppose it's just what one gets used to by default.
quote:
originally posted by Chorister:
(Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)
[tangent]
Pity those of us who learnt 'metric' at school. I'm totally messed up: I can picture the length of centimetres, metres, feet and miles, but not inches or kilometres. I don't know how many feet in a mile, or how many pounds in a stone (12?) but I know my weight in stones and my height in feet and inches. I know long distances in miles but measure short ones in feet. I cook in ounces, but was never taught how many ounces in a pound.
[/tangent]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind?
The fact that it is horrible amalgam of Latin and Anglo-Saxon roots? (Ok so I live with television which is a bizarre Greek Latin hybrid). What is wrong with humanity? Personally I have no problem with mankind being inclusive. I am of the kin of man (which I hear inclusively).
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow.
But it can't. The omission of men does (potentially) change the meaning. With it, it refers to salvation being for all mankind (or humanity if you must), without it, it is possible to read it as referring to 'us, who are saying this' or 'us, people like us'. This loses the sense of the Greek ημας τoυς ανθρoπoυς. Omitting 'men' (rather than, say, replacing it by humans) makes it more exclusive! Personally, I never had any problem with men here being inclusive, because I've just said us, so it must include me!
Carys
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
We are told that "God is a spirit, neither male nor female" yet the imagery used is overwhelmingly male. I don't relate at all to God as "She" - to me that's the Goddess from Wicca - both terms are intended to be equally inclusive, but to me they don't feel that way.
The trouble is that we really only have "it" as a non-gender specific alternative and that's not really appropriate for non-inanimate beings.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Re. Chorister and 'It is right' etc at the opening of the eucharistic prayer...
'man' was never used there before the 1970's - it was a Series3 / ASB invention. Common Worship has gone back to the BCP ("It is meet and right so to do") which is itself a pretty accurate translation of what the mediaevel Latin missal said.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Words like "humankind" aren't inclusive. They exclude both men and women.
Is there anyone else out there who would prefer to pray to God as Mother or Father than some genderless globule?
And this is all apart from the fact that the results of replacing of gender-specific words in hymns etc are normally shit.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. Chorister and 'It is right' etc at the opening of the eucharistic prayer...
'man' was never used there before the 1970's - it was a Series3 / ASB invention. Common Worship has gone back to the BCP ("It is meet and right so to do") which is itself a pretty accurate translation of what the mediaevel Latin missal said.
I like the Australian "It is right to give our thanks and praise" as it fits the ASB rhythm, without causing an awkward break.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are there really women who are up in arms about the unintended male bias in hymn words (as opposed to intended ones which is a different story)? Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
I don't see myself as a feminist (proof statement: I've declined to take any feminist theology courses at theology college). Up in arms, no. But do I need inclusive language? Yep. The church went out of its way in my childhood to let me know that my chromosomes made me a second-class citizen in it's eyes and a bogus sort of "separate by equal" in God's eyes. "Mankind" does NOT include me as a woman, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll take the poetic/metric point about songs and hymns, but as far as I'm concerned, any preacher who consistently says "mankind" when they can choose "humankind" instead must certainly be trying to make a point unless he or she is very elderly. I would find it equally objectionable if a preacher/worship leader referred only to God our Mother, Goddess, Sophia and Lady Wisdom.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
Re humankind
quote:
The fact that it is horrible amalgam of Latin and Anglo-Saxon roots? - Carys
A particular bugbear of my own. Whenever I have pointed this out the reaction has always been 'so what ?' Comforting to find that I am not alone, after all ...
It also raises a question to which someone out there might have an answer. Much of the underlying rationale of 'inclusive language' revolves around the fact that the English word 'man' - which originally meant human being (as opposed to any other species) - has now to double up to mean also 'specifically male human being'. Just as Greek and Latin have separate words for the two concepts, so did English at an earlier stage. So why did 'wer' disappear?
As I have observed elsewhere, altering the words of hymns (as particularly in Rejoice and Sing) causes problems to those many folk sing waht they perhaps fondly suppose to be familiar words at least half from memory.
Posted by 103 (One-O-Three) (# 5846) on
:
I've noticed that priests (both Anglican and RC) always change prayers that say "Men" to "Men and Women" and "Brethren" to "My Brothers and Sisters"
It'd be interesting to get into that mentality which makes them decide to change the texts on the fly in order not to offend anybody. I don't think anybody would be offended if they did forget to say "and Women" because I should think that anybody with half a brain cell would work out that the priest isn't just talking about people of the male gender.
-103
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think anybody would be offended if they did forget to say "and Women"
I used to think the whole inclusive language thing was silly. As 103 says, who could possibly feel excluded and offended?
Lots of people.
And it's extremely difficult for me to get inside their heads because I'm a human being of the male persuasion. Just like I'm a human being of the white persuasion. When you're at the top of the heap those little things that annoy those further down the heap are sometimes hard to comprehend. Doesn't mean they're not real though.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
... Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-..., equal pay & conditions etc. ...
Well, now. The Person's Case of 1916-1929 finally established that in certain legal words, the male term did actually include the female.
It seems to me that the "male is inclusive" theory was paid mostly lip-service, since in actual fact women were usually excluded.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Except "for us and our salvation" is not the equivalent of "for us men and our salvation" -- the former doesn't say who "we" are. The latter prevents "us" being taken to mean "us Methodists" or "us Orthodox" or "us Elect" or "us Calvinists" which is an unfortunate but very real tendency. I'd far rather say something totally clunky like "for us human beings and for our salvation" than to leave out the noun altogether. I think that is one place where we mess with "what has been handed down" to our peril.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Except "for us and our salvation" is not the equivalent of "for us men and our salvation" -- the former doesn't say who "we" are. The latter prevents "us" being taken to mean "us Methodists" or "us Orthodox" or "us Elect" or "us Calvinists" which is an unfortunate but very real tendency. I'd far rather say something totally clunky like "for us human beings and for our salvation" than to leave out the noun altogether. I think that is one place where we mess with "what has been handed down" to our peril.
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
Yes "mankind" used to be inclusive. But today it's not, at least in large parts of the world. And you can't put the genie back in the bottle by screaming "it is so, it is so." If a bunch of women want to proclaim that they are men, that's fine with me. But I don't know many around here who do. And for men like me to tell women that they ought to shut up and accept that a word used one way in all the rest of their life means something contrary in church... no, not going to do that.
I think the most important thing said on this thread was Sine's point that as a white male, it's awefully hard to understand what perfectly "inclusive" language looks like to people who aren't. But sometimes we have to try.
John
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on
:
I am an ardent supporter of inclusive language. I choose not to use language that a)appears to exclude more than half the human race and b)implies that men are the normative form of person, and women derive their personhood from men. I tend not to use gender terms for God, and when I do, I tend to alter between he and she, as well as using metaphors from both genders. I discourage my students from using exclusive language for people and for God. I believe that inclusive language, rather than being a feminist plot, is a prophetic movement in the life of the church, calling us to repent of past injustices and enable women and men to be freed from gender bias and stereotyping.
For the record, I spent my yoof in a BCP church using the Book of Common Praise which is about the most gender exclusive language combination you can get. Frankly, if I can get used to gender inclusive language, anyone can. The change, however, must be accompanied by good teaching. Human nature causes us to reject anything new, so church leadership ought to encourage congregations to be agents of change rather than victims of change. I think, with good leadership, a church can move to gender inclusive language in one year with relatively little reaction.
(I now sing "Dear Father, Lord of humankind" without noticing - and my first solo as a boy soprano was "Dear Lord and Father of mankind")
Posted by GloriaGloriaGloria (# 8017) on
:
As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I can live with the traditional language in almost every case, but the "for us men" really bugs me. I guess it's the just too close combination of those two words, "us" and "men." No amount of rationalization about the history of language can prevent me blushing. And that's not a good thing when I am trying to concentrate during worship.
I also have trouble with that one hymn (used generally at ordinations and mission festivals) that keeps hammering on God, verse after verse, to "Send MEN (of various types and qualifications) where You Yourself will go." The word is used so often and so forcefully that it becomes impossible to overlook.
I tried to get these thoughts across to the folks on the hymnal revision committee where I served (the only woman), but I'm not sure they ever really understood. It's not a "feminist agenda." It's the gut-level emotional problem of blushing in the middle of a worship service.
I did try to get this across once by reminding them that, if we used the English of a thousand years ago in its orginal meaning, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to look at their childhood pictures and tell them what cute little girls they had been. THAT led to a short silence.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
The problem with non-inclusive language is that down there at a momentary, sub-concious level when it's used, one does picture what is named. I read about a study where a number of grad students were asked to draw Neanderthal Man; they did indeed draw only men. When I sang "Good Christian Men, Rejoice!" I'd have a quick vision of a bunch of 19th cent. guys singing. I really, really wish that English had some gender neutral pronouns to apply to God or human beings.
I remember reading Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness in which she posits a race of humans who are hermaphrodites. Most of the time they are not either male or female. When they go into a natural period of being sexually active they can go either way but not at their conscious discretion. In her intro she spoke of struggling with the pronouns and finally throwing up her hands and settling on the inclusive masculine. She didn't feel it was a total success and it wasn't. No matter that she tried to keep their personalities as non-stereotypical as possible, I still couldn't help visualizing them as male. Later she wrote a short story about the planet's royal ruler in exile. She called the character the King but used she/her as the pronouns. The dichodomy this caused was much more successful in creating a differently sexed person.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see myself as a feminist (proof statement: I've declined to take any feminist theology courses at theology college). Up in arms, no. But do I need inclusive language? Yep. The church went out of its way in my childhood to let me know that my chromosomes made me a second-class citizen in it's eyes and a bogus sort of "separate by equal" in God's eyes. "Mankind" does NOT include me as a woman, as far as I'm concerned.
Like it or not, you're a feminist. It's not a bad word, nor a bad thing to be. I will never for the life of me understand why any woman who objects to second-class status would demur for a moment at calling herself a feminist.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.
If you examine the overall way languages in general work, the almostly uniquely English-language obsession with this issue looks eccentric, and, to be honest, rather ignorant.
Almost all other languages have two or more genders. German little girls are neuter, but I don't think that affects the way little boys relate to them. A person in French is feminine, so you can construct sentences that make "elle" apply to Jesus without a lot of effort, and I was reading a notice yesterday on the wall of my notary in which the female "toute personne" in the first sentence meant that all the following text referred to me in the feminine. I shall not be pressing charges. There are moves to allow nouns describing certain professions to be masculine or feminine, for example, but if you try to cover both gender options in a French sentence, you end up having to put brackets at the end of most nouns and adjectives, and I'm not aware of any way of reading such sentences outloud.
The arguments about "if man means male here it must mean male there" or vice versa are just silly. Many many words have more than one meaning, many many words have a general and a specific meaning, the semantic field of words drifts over time and according to context, and all this is what makes human language interesting, subtle, beautiful. The French equivalent of "not kosher" is "not catholic", but that doesn't mean that when a protestant uses that phrase he is accepting catholicism as the one true religion, even if that's the history of the phrase.
If you want to speak to God in a formally neutral language, go for XML or some other syntax created by non-linguists. But don't expect to write poetry. God chose to reveal himself to us in human language.
And, finally, I've still yet to hear anyone interested in inclusive language condemn the word "midwife", or the clear sex discrimination in UK employment law that it labels, which does seem to suggest that this quest for equality is something of a one-way street.
[ 05. June 2005, 06:23: Message edited by: Melon ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
You're right. When the Bible says that we are all sons of God, it means that we all benefit from what at the time were uniquely male inheritance rights. That's a radically liberating message for women, and we can't have that. By reverting to "child", we emasculate (sic) the whole thrust of that dangerous feminist Paul's argument in Galatians 3:26, thus undermining the most famous feminist proof-text in the Bible, Gal 3:28, and assert our conviction that the blessing is reserved for men. The natural order of things is restored!
Oh, wait, that wasn't your point, was it?
Maybe we should rewrite ancient history to be consistent with our linguistic hang-ups?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, it matters. And why do you think the bias is unintentional?
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Like it or not, you're a feminist. It's not a bad word, nor a bad thing to be. I will never for the life of me understand why any woman who objects to second-class status would demur for a moment at calling herself a feminist.
"Feminist" has something of a negative image in many women's eyes. They see it as a man-hating, dungarees-wearing, humourless, chip-on-the-shoulder, cropped-haired, militant, probably lesbian stereotype. To be a feminist (in their eyes) means that you go to extremes, and you never shave your legs or wear makeup on principle. Remember the days of "fat is a feminist issue"?
I mentioned some months ago on another thread one example of a friend who said she didn't like feminists or regard herself as a feminist and didn't want to. We were talking in the office at the time. She was wearing a trouser suit, she had short hair, she'd driven a car to get to work, she was nearly 30 and not married, she had the vote, and the two of us had recently had lunch in a pub together. All of these were privileges that "feminists" in the past had won for her.
And yet even now some women can't be bothered and regard things like further education, or being interested in science, or sport or computers, and so on, as "unfeminine". Most of the women I've met don't like "Ms" and regard it as feminist. "What's wrong with being Mrs or Miss?" Because it defines you in terms of the man. There's only one title for men (Mr). Why not have an equivalent?
There have been centuries of women not being able to express themselves fully either intellectually or creatively (there aren't exactly a lot of female painters or composers and look at how the first female authors had to disguise themselves as men) - even in this day and age I think there is still a subconscious perception that women expect not to achieve their full potential or to reach the top. It's not really womanly/ladylike/proper.
And this sort of thing is why we need inclusive language, because there's still a subconscious perception that men are the dominant species, and we need some visible reminders that actually, this doesn't have to be the case. You can change conscious attitudes to some extent, but changing subconscious perceptions is a lot harder.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
Would that be like writing hymns that identify "Israel" as some sort of master race to which all Christians belong? The last line of one liturgy we sing in our church is "and to Israel the glory", where Israel is obviously supposed to mean us.
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
As was brought to my attention once a long time ago in a Survivor's Workshop (I was bullied into attending due to my history of domestic violence), many women who have been abused by a male figure in authority (father, husband/spouse, et.c.) often has difficulty relating to a masculine image of God. Which hasn't bothered me, but I've spent over half my life dealing with it, so... YMMV.
A lawyer/blogger acquaintance of mine used 'em' as a gender-neutral English pronoun in her informal writing to preserve anonymity, and I adopted it in my own ranting about school because it works. I doubt the Church in any of its myriad forms would take it on anytime soon, but it's something to keep in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
To be a feminist (in their eyes) means that you go to extremes, and you never shave your legs or wear makeup on principle.
HEY! I resemble that remark! Or maybe I'm just lazy.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
But most of my post was about more general linguistic principles which apply as much to English as to any other language. I'm lefthanded, so should I burst a blood vessel every time someone used the word "sinister"? Just about every English word referring to "left" has negative connotations. Most English idioms including "French" or "Dutch" are derogatory, and often obscene, so should the French in England take out a class action?
Language doesn't define the world, it provides a loose set of labels through which we can refer to the world. You can be sexist using scrupulously PC vocab and grammar, and you can be inclusive without ever using female pronouns to refer to people in general.
And, while inclusive language might be a harmless distraction in some areas, it's downright ridiculous when applied to anything biblical, as I think my Galatians 3 example shows. In this context, "Sons and daughters of God" means "First and second class citizens of God" - the whole point is that God adopts each of us as his sons, which is why there is no longer male of female in Christ Jesus. If you make Paul talk PC, you make him/her talk gibberish, and sexist PC gibberish at that.
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on
:
"Man" includes both male and female not "because everybody knows that's what we mean," but because, according to Taxanomic Classification, we belong to the family "Hominidae" (Man), the genus "Homo" (human) and the species "Sapiens" (wise - ya gotta laugh.)
The sex of the specimen does not affect it's classification. Ergo, male or female, we're all homos. I mean men.
Corpus
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
I simply think English is what we're talking about here, not other languages. It is irrelevant that in some other languages nouns have gender, just as it is irrelevant that in some other languages nouns have declensions. To bring in gender as it exists in French or German and insist that it somehow matters is like saying it somehow bears on Japanese that there are definite and indefinite articles in English--the Japanese only have to care about this if they want to speak English.
quote:
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
No, battleships and the church are not female, as they would have to have a sex to be female. Neither are they feminine, as they have no gender; English nouns do not have gender. It has been a convention to refer to a ship and to the church as "she," just as it used to be conventional in the US to give hurricanes women's names. None of these conventions give ships, the church or hurricanes gender. They are properly referred to by the word "it," which has no gender.
It is frequently ridiculous and sometimes even wrong to impose inclusive language on texts which arose out of sexist societies; wrong when such an imposition obscures the meaning of the text or gives the effect of rewriting history. But for the reasons Ariel so eloquently laid out, we need our language today to be inclusive.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, it matters. And why do you think the bias is unintentional?
I agree with this absolutely. "Mankind" means "humanity" (which is a much less awkward word than "human kind") because for centuries men were the "normal adult people".
In my lifetime, I've been told by the church that I had to be a "son of God" and absolutely could not be a "daughter of God". I've been told that I was created in God's image because I was created in man's image and man was created in God's image. I've been told that God never calls women to teach his word to people in general but only to other women and children (i.e. the "not grown up" and the "not quite grown, not quite responsible" people).
In my lifetime, I've been told by the secular world that they couldn't waste resources teaching me advanced maths and science in school because I was a girl. I've been told by an office manager to "Smile. That's what women are for."
The word and concept of "mankind" actually excluded women in important ways and that's why the language needs to change.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Seeker963
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out.
John Holding And Jugular
quote:
As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"
Gloria x3
quote:
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
Just try saying "for us whites and for our salvation" and see where it gets you!
Well, for some of us, it feels that exclusive!
(And no, I don't mind the fine old hymns, but as for modern songs that are male-orientated, I could happily lynch the lyricists )
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To bring in gender as it exists in French or German and insist that it somehow matters is like saying it somehow bears on Japanese that there are definite and indefinite articles in English--the Japanese only have to care about this if they want to speak English.
It becomes relevant when people start talking about what is normative or about how language functions.
The whole inclusive language thing seems to be built on a postmodernist approach to language (for which, ironically, we can thank a francophone), which appears to have been swallowed whole by large sections of the English-speaking church without explicit discussion of its assumptions. For a postmodernist, language is crucial because there are only discourses and because there is no truth outside of a particular discourse. I don't accept those assumptions, I don't think they are compatible with the historical Christian incarnational approach to culture, and I certainly don't see why someone from another discourse should tell Christians how to use language - that's wrong, in even within postmodernist terms of reference.
Traditional English ways of referring to gender follow other languages, notably the ones on which it draws. There is nothing natural about inclusive language, it's a deliberate attempt to redesign language for possibly dubious ideological reasons, so it is entirely reasonable to take a step back from that project and see what it looks like in the wider scheme of human language.
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
And, as a point of fact, the word used in Japanese to express regret has been front-page news in British papers on several occasions in the recent past.
quote:
No, battleships and the church are not female, as they would have to have a sex to be female. Neither are they feminine, as they have no gender; English nouns do not have gender. It has been a convention to refer to a ship and to the church as "she," just as it used to be conventional in the US to give hurricanes women's names. None of these conventions give ships, the church or hurricanes gender.
What is a language other than a series of conventions? Everything you say above applies to "mankind" too - "mankind" has to be an "it", because it is plural, even before we discuss whether or not it includes women. The problem with "mankind" is that it includes the string M A N, as does "manager" (which is also attacked on PC grounds although the M A N in this case has absolutely nothing to do with gender) and "Manchester". If mankind is self-evidently male, the British counties of Essex and Sussex are self-evidently about S E X. The argument really does seem to be on that level (see other posts above on the origin of the word "man").
quote:
They are properly referred to by the word "it," which has no gender.
So how come God has to be "she", not "it" in inclusive language, yet the church always remains "she", not "it", or "he"? I'm sorry, but the postmodernist rhetoric of power means that PC reasoning always points in the same predictable direction.
quote:
It is frequently ridiculous and sometimes even wrong to impose inclusive language on texts which arose out of sexist societies; wrong when such an imposition obscures the meaning of the text or gives the effect of rewriting history. But for the reasons Ariel so eloquently laid out, we need our language today to be inclusive.
Fine, as long as we recognise that anything referring directly or indirectly to the Bible is going to have to be an exception, as Charles Read's ill-judged example of "sexist" new songs demonstrates perfectly.
Posted by wesleyswig (# 5436) on
:
(median tangent)
I must admit I am always worried and not that happy to sing with my usual gusto about things proclaiming Israel as the promised people and to Israel Glory.
Just like I was rather bemused and not htat happy singing a hymn to the tune of Deustchland Uber Alles the weekend after Auswitch liberation.
Maybe I have been to ideologicaly raised, I just honestly think we need to seriously examine what we say and do in the modern day context. The race issue is a very pertanent one as in places like South Africa, Nazi germany taught religious doctrine which upheld one race over another. Therefore we can all see what happens.
This isnt true "liberal hankee squeezing" instead it is a realisation of the world around us and that if anyone new came through the door one sunday and saw us all singing
1) That all men/ mankind were saved
2) To Israel be the glory
They are going to be scared and worried with good reason!
Many Regards
John
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
This isnt true "liberal hankee squeezing" instead it is a realisation of the world around us and that if anyone new came through the door one sunday and saw us all singing
1) That all men/ mankind were saved
2) To Israel be the glory
They are going to be scared and worried with good reason!
Well a) it does look rather old-fashioned and b) it comes across as patriarchal which are two reasons why people don't go to church as often as they used to.
I've chanted quite a few such psalms during Vespers in my time but I never thought the references to Israel ever had much to do with us, to be honest. I took them more as a purely historical thing and a product of the time when they were written. "Israel" has a different set of associations for us in the 21st century than it did in the Victorian age or eras previous to that; today there is no way to think of "Israel" without thinking of Palestine and the Middle East question somewhere along the line.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
today there is no way to think of "Israel" without thinking of Palestine and the Middle East question somewhere along the line.
There may be no way for you to do that, and in this case I share your concern, but who gets to speak for "everyone" on these matters? Depending where you do your survey, I think you will find that there are as many "everyone"s who feel alienated by the rewriting of classic hymns as "everyone"s who feel alienated by the original versions (and a lot of people who just don't care either way but wish the Church could spent its time on something more useful).
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on
:
I was irritated in our service this morning when we sang "At the name of Jesus" from Common Praise. It appeared untouched by the editorial committee, so I sang verse 5 (at my usual fortissimo) "Name him, Brothers, name him", from memory, only to find a lot of people singing "Name him, Christians, name him". . This feels extremely PC motivated and for no other reason, as they left the next line (with love strong as death) alone. This doesn't fit the metre and can be changed to "with love as strong as death", which would indicate some intelligent thought in the editorial process.
The whole inclusive / exclusive language area is a minefield where anyone (male / female, straight / gay, white / non-white) can find words to be offended by, if they look hard enough. Sometimes you don't have to look very hard, sometimes you have to look very hard indeed, but those determined to be offended will indeed do so.
PS. My view of equality is in my sig....
Posted by Lurker McLurker™ (# 1384) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women.
By most people you mean most of your kind of people, right? For many who don't sing hymns and read the older translations of the Bible on a regular basis, or who havent had an background where reading shakespeare and other classic literature was a joy "man" means "male human".
And since when is language changing an assault? Languages change, and English changes more than most.
[Edited to add]
Oh, how copuld I have missed that? It's the old changing language as a minefield line! This is a pet hate of mine but as this is a Purg thread I will restrain myslef and just ask one question:
Learning new words to a song? How hard is it? Really, if you consider the cost of learning a few new words to a song against the benefit of not pissing people off by careless use of language, how can anyone come to the conclusion that not changing the words is the best option?
[ 05. June 2005, 12:33: Message edited by: Lurker McLurker™ ]
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
Coming from an extremely patriarchal church background I genuinely think this is hugely important. I felt myself excluded from the church because the use of exclusive language permitted the exclusion of women. One leads to another. In more healthy churches it's probably harder to see but if one looks to the loony fringe one sees the inevitable consequences of what centuries of exclusive language have been.
My own particular bugbear is an organisation (which may or may not have been renamed since) that existed in the church I was brought up in called the Womans Foreign Missionary Association. This is the inevitable consequence of exclusive language. It allows things to be reduced. It allows institutional sexism (and in this case racism). This organisation was set up to allow the women to organise mission work because the men were busy with the church at home. I have never managed to work out whether it's more sexist than racist or vice versa.
Words matter, words inform beliefs whether conscious or unconscious. They can be powerful things. They need to be used with care.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
However, as a teacher, I do get frustrated with teenage gilrs who stridently proclai: "I'm not a feminist". When I ask them if they don't want a vote, or university education, they normally start changing their line and become Vicki Pollard: "Yeah but, No but".
Posted by Eloise (# 4292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
I think it would be fair to say that, although it is descended from languages in which gender (which is fairly closely correlated to physical sex where such exists) is an inherent property of all nouns, modern English is closer to languages like Chinese, which only have gendered pronouns, if that. The situation is quite different from many European languages in that English words, in and of themselves, don't have any particular gender. So, I don't really think that you can talk about gendered words in English and gendered words in Latin as though they were the same concept - they're not.
Just like English used to have case marking on all nouns, has now lost it except on pronouns, and seems to be losing that too (whom etc), I think the same sort of thing has happened with gender (although the pronouns don't seem to be losing it, yet) . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
. . . in particular, I don't think this holds for people (at least in Australia) of my generation (I'm 19). I know I do a double-take when I hear ships referred to as 'she' (FWIW, I did the same thing the first time I heard 'midwife' used in a contemporary, official context) - the half a dozen people I just did a straw poll on also seem to confirm this. The interesting exception was a person who works for the department of defence. She said that when she first went there she said 'it' for battleships, but the hierarchy don't like it and so she has got used to using 'she.' If this is representative, it would seem to suggest that the losing of gender on nouns in English is not something being imposed (unsuccessfully) from the top, as you seem to suggest, but something that's happening naturally, in defiance of the officially correct way of doing things. All of which is tangential to the issue of words like 'mankind' (because the gender thing there is in the overt form of the word, not just associated with it), still, it's interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Traditional English ways of referring to gender follow other languages, notably the ones on which it draws. There is nothing natural about inclusive language, it's a deliberate attempt to redesign language for possibly dubious ideological reasons, so it is entirely reasonable to take a step back from that project and see what it looks like in the wider scheme of human language.
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
Aside from the fact that it's not all that eccentric not to have a gender system for nouns (and some languages that do don't relate it to sex at all, just things like animacy) such things have been done. For instance, in classical Chinese, there was only one third person pronoun??, which consisted of a man radical (the bit on the left if you can see the character) plus another bit. In the early 20th century (after the fall of the last dynasty but before the rise of the communists) the May Fourth movement arose among the literati (it was centred around Peking University). Their agenda was mainly anti-confucianist, and one of the things they pushed the hardest was gender equality. The relevant point is this: they invented a new character ? which replaced the man radical with a woman one, but kept the same pronunciation. This character is now totally normative - so a) it can be done, and b) other languages have tried it too, it's not just crazy english-speakers!
Posted by Chap (# 4926) on
:
Personally I find the majority of cases to be more of a pain than they are worth. There is certianly a need to be sensitive to the feelings of others and not to intentionaly offend. However, there is a big difference in a person being truly ofensive and those that have simply taken it upon themselves to be easily offended.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
Learning new words to a song? How hard is it? Really, if you consider the cost of learning a few new words to a song against the benefit of not pissing people off by careless use of language, how can anyone come to the conclusion that not changing the words is the best option?
Because your position as stated above is absurdly simplistic and totally out of touch with reality?
You have plenty of people posting above who are pis... vexed in their spirits when the words are changed. So it isn't a question of either offending people or not offending people, it's more a question of deciding which groups of people you least want to/most enjoy offending.
We started off this thread with people being offended by allegedly sexist language. Some of us aren't offended by that, but are offended by allegedly zionist language. Presumably some of us are not offended by either, and some are offended by both, and I'm sure there are plenty more axes of offence we can dig up with a bit of effort. So do you have a single editorial policy that will guarantee that no-one is offended? And which leaves any content behind? And which results in songs that scan?
One of the key aspects of language, especially in liturgy, is that it is shared. If every person in church is going to sing different words on a line by line basis depending on their personal set of circumstances, is the result Church of Babel?
If people use "exclusive" language when speaking or writing about events set firmly in the modern idiom, there might be a point to argue. But to put 21st Century political correctness into the mouth of people who died 200, 400 or 1,000 years ago is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Should we make Shakespeare's Shylock a person of unspecified race too while we are about it? Should the cross be carried by Simon Of A Place From Where People Tend To Have Darker Skin Than The European Average Although That Point Has No Bearing On The Narrative? Should the lyrics to "Ring-a-ring of roses" be changed to "Your chances of recovering from a severe illness are now extremely good"? Where do you want to stop, and what transparent and consistent criteria do you propose for drawing the line?
If you are going to sing hymns written in a previous century, you need to remember that they were, well, written in a previous century, and interpret their lyrics accordingly. Or don't sing them, and pretend that the Age of Enlightenment began at Woodstock (and don't expect your congregation to make a lot of sense of the Bible once the sexual and racial politics that form the backdrop to much of what happens have been airbrushed out in the interests of decorum).
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
In reply to me, Melon wrote:
quote:
You're right. When the Bible says that we are all sons of God, it means that we all benefit from what at the time were uniquely male inheritance rights. That's a radically liberating message for women, and we can't have that. By reverting to "child", we emasculate (sic) the whole thrust of that dangerous feminist Paul's argument in Galatians 3:26, thus undermining the most famous feminist proof-text in the Bible, Gal 3:28, and assert our conviction that the blessing is reserved for men. The natural order of things is restored!
Oh, wait, that wasn't your point, was it?
Maybe we should rewrite ancient history to be consistent with our linguistic hang-ups?
Actually, I rather think this proves the point. While you are correct about first century property rights etc. and the theology of Paul referring to 'sons' of God etc., today this is not part of English culture (nor of other English speaking cultures I'd guess) and so 'sons of God' comes across as male. Recasting into 'child' in the song I cites is therefore not a distortion of the Biblical message but rather an attempt to make it clear for this generation.
As to inclusive language being a postmodern thing - well you can argue for it on those terms ('language is the only reality') but also on decidedly modernist terms too ('language must express truth clearly'). The philosophy of inclusive language is not as straightforward as you imply. Added to this, in terms of this thread:
a) liturgical language is philosophically complicated of itself
b) classic texts are - for a variety of reasons - not easily inclusivised well
so that's why inclusivising older hymns is tricky - though I think it can occasionally work. Writing texts de novo is another matter...
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
Self-consciously using lots of feminine images and referring to God constantly as "she" is not what I call inclusive.
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). And I'd estimate that in 90% of instances, there are perfectly natural phraseologies that don't involve suggesting that God is male.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eloise:
Aside from the fact that it's not all that eccentric not to have a gender system for nouns <snip> This character is now totally normative - so a) it can be done, and b) other languages have tried it too, it's not just crazy english-speakers!
It's not the absence of a gender system that I'm describing as eccentric, it's the obsession with tinkering with the language.
The Chinese example is interesting. Languages obviously do move on, typically towards simpler grammar, and I'm sure some top-down attempts to do this work. But there are an awful lot of counter-examples - several decades of the French civil service having a dictionary of banned (English-origin) words that cannot appear in any official publication has not prevented hundreds of English words from entering the French language, to the point where if you use the official term as a foreigner you get corrected to the English version.
And the problem with the English language PC drive is that it just doesn't end. If we were just talking about avoiding "he" when the subject could be male or female, I could see the point. If it was a question of choosing the least offensive of several commonly used and sepersontically* equivalent words, I'd say "why not"? It's when "manhole cover" has to become "personnel access cover" that I start to dispair. It's a ridiculous, contrived phrase that no-one used before, and which is only going to be adopted if people are threatened with disciplinary sanctions for using the far shorter older term. And much of the inclusive language used in church has the same artificial ring to it. You get the impression that it isn't about improving communication, it's about making communication about anything other than gender politics nigh on impossible. And of course that's a worthy postmodernist ambition.
* inclusive version of "semantically"
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Unfortunately, feminism has got a bad name, due to extremism or, arguably, something else masquerading as feminism. I changed my attitude to it when it was pointed out to me that many men were, in fact, feminists - it is just that they would never use that actual word. Perhaps the word should be changed to one which indicates people who believe that all human life is equally precious.
As some people have already said, it is easy to focus on language and forget the wider expressions of equality. I will certainly find it easier to sing the new words knowing it is helping some people, because up to now all I've heard is criticism (from women as well as men).
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Actually, I rather think this proves the point. While you are correct about first century property rights etc. and the theology of Paul referring to 'sons' of God etc., today this is not part of English culture (nor of other English speaking cultures I'd guess) and so 'sons of God' comes across as male. Recasting into 'child' in the song I cites is therefore not a distortion of the Biblical message but rather an attempt to make it clear for this generation.
That's fine until your congregation stumbles across Galatians 3, on which the song you mention is based, and which relies upon exclusive language as the basis of its argument. At that point I can see a number of options, none of which fills me with enthusiasm:
- They substitute "son or daughter" for "son", at which point the passage makes no logical sense anymore (there is neither male nor female because, err, we are sons and daughters...)
- They conclude that everything they have heard about Paul is true, he really did hate women
- They stop singing the new song because it is heretical
- (most likely) They stop trying to reconcile what happens in church with what they read in the Bible
The basic problem here is that the Bible isn't remotely PC, and fiddling with the pronouns and replacing "mankind" with "humanity" doesn't even start to address that. Teaching people to look for what the Bible was saying in its original context, and then to make appropriate contemporary applications, is hard work, but the alternative of pretending that the Bible is contemporary is just mad. If your liturgy includes the Bible, you are going to hit this problem time and time again.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on
:
Sometimes it's a question of being able to see both sides - or having a view about both sides - but that one side of the argument weighs more strongly.
For me, I love traditional hymns, especially the internal rhymes and rhythms; and dislike the tinkerings which as a by-product tend to ruin the internal rhymes and stresses. So I find modernised versions absolutely painful. On the other hand, as a woman I feel utterly left out by references to 'sons', 'man' etc; I'm fully aware of their historical meanings etc but this doesn't make them acceptable to me *today*.
Some who can't understand that others find exclusive language difficult seem to assume that it's because we don't understand the history behind it, or don't care for 'proper' or traditional prayers and hymns. Not at all. For some of us its' not about misunderstanding historical usage, or even feeling offended, and it's certainly not about having a tin ear! It's that exclusive language creates a perception for some of restricting access to God. To me that is the heart of the matter and that is why it is an important issue rather than a petty one.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Unfortunately, feminism has got a bad name
Suspect that it always had a bad name (amongst those who didn't agree with it).
But that the centre of gravity of society has moved on this issue, so what was feminist at the beginning of the 20th century is mainstream today.
(Not implying that further change in a feminist direction is either desirable or undesirable - make up your own mind on that).
Seems pretty clear to me that inclusive language isn't "really necessary" - because the Church got along without it for hundreds of years.
But concern for others is really necessary. Both those others who - because they have suffered in some way - are unduly sensitive to suggestions of inferiority where none is intended. And those others who are attached to the old forms.
How can we say that either group don't matter ?
Part of the lyric-writer's art is to choose the word which rhymes/scans and which is close enough in meaning to what is intended. Automatic eradication of gender reference is bad art...
Russ
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But concern for others is really necessary. Both those others who - because they have suffered in some way - are unduly sensitive to suggestions of inferiority where none is intended. And those others who are attached to the old forms.
Even when no suggestion of inferiority is intended, it is entirely possible that one may be conveyed. Our societies (and their languages) have an ingrained sexism that will take a long time to eradicate. So for many years yet to come there will be women who are suffering, women who are defensive because they are afraid they will be made to suffer, men ditto on both counts, people who appreciate the new forms and phrasings, people who dislike them, and people who wish the whole thing would just be over and go away.
This is all still a very new change. Women in the UK and the US have had the vote for less than 100 years, after being second-class citizens for all of these countries' recorded history (and before anyone objects, yes, I know that it's not as if all men were considered equal under the law all that time). It will take generations for our societies to absorb the change, not to mention what will happen in other societies; women in Kuwait got the vote just last week.
Melon, sorry, but I don't buy your argument that tinkering with the language is all due to some post-modernist agenda. You seem to have the idea that languages are a natural phenomenon over which we have no control, and this is simply not so. Languages don't evolve like species evolve; we can and do make conscious choices about how we will use language, and to make the conscious choice to use language that demeans other people is plainly quite wrong.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Forgot something.
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
Not all women everywhere want or need the same thing at the same time. It's confusing, but it's true. Sometimes there are things that are far more important than inclusive language--I would place the right to vote, freedom from discrimination in the workplace and access to education ahead of inclusive language. But sometimes inclusive language is very important. When we're talking about inclusive language in church, what to do and when to do it will vary from one congregation to the next, I think.
[fixed code]
[ 06. June 2005, 02:35: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Foolhearty (# 6196) on
:
What Ruth said.
Beyond that is yet another issue. For many of us, inclusive language in the church setting represents a change. If we are long-time worshipers, we're asked to abandon old familiar (and often well-loved) phrasings for new ones that, to be fair, are sometimes pretty "clunky" to the ear.
We are forgetting, though, that whatever language we're using provides a first impression for many people -- people visiting the church, people looking for a spiritual home, etc.
These people enter into a church which is utterly new and strange in many ways. And they come from a world where "political correctness" reigns, for good or ill.
I wonder what impression non-inclusive languagae makes on such people?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
"Man" isn't short for "human" any more than it's short for "woman". It's a different word altogether.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
...
I honestly don't think that there is any reason, ever, to use "mankind" instead of humanity (notice that "humanity" is not feminine-gendered). ...
Humanity includes the word man just like mankind does. Therefore, both should be avoided, or neither.
You might have a point if I were advocating the eradication of the letters "man" from the English language since the letters "man" are also a constitutent part of the word "woman". However, I'm not advocating that.
So, "man" being short for "human" you don't have a problem with?
Um, I'm not sure what we're talking about, Sharkshooter. It seems to me that this post directly contradicts your assertion that one cannot use the word "human" to include women because it contains the word "man".
So which is it? That the word "man" is genderless? Or that the word "human" doesn't include women by virtue of being masculine? I don't think you can have it both ways.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
Sorry for the long quote-inclusion. I tried to edit but missed the edit window.
Sharkshooter, I could be wrong, but you seem to have taken offence at my suggestion that the word "humanity" is more natural and normal these days and should be used in preference to "mankind". I really can't see how that suggestion could be offensive, but if it does offend you, I'll take note of the fact. Otherwise this conversation seems to be bordering on the surreal.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Melon mentioned midwife. I understand that the 'mid' bit means 'with.' A midwife is someone, male or female, who is skilled to be with a wife as she gives birth. It implies that mothers will be wives, but it does not imply that birth assistants will be female.
I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.
Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.
William Tyndale was strangled to death and his body burnt for printing vernacular New Testaments. We remain a Word centred faith. I say language matters.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not only this, but the language of hymns and prayers gives us much of our theological and devotional vocabulary; it educates us. This is therefore a very important subject.
This is the real reason why people either love or hate to use particular types of hymns or songs - regardless of whether they like the music.
Some of the theological points in hymns and songs are blindingly obvious. Others may be much more subtle, and only drip-feed into our consciousness. Perhaps the gender issue used to be a drip-feed one, but has now (with changing times) moved into the 'blindingly obvious' category.
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think the argument that respect for the original texts of hymns and prayers means we should live with the exclusive language would be fine if we were talking about plays or poems. Hymns and prayers, though, are given to us in worship to use as our own. We sing or speak them and try to make them our own expression, and need to be reasonably comfortable with what they say and how they say it.
And not only that but the wording of hymns does change constantly, both by natural mutation and deliberate tinkering. Often it's a case of updating the language, or correcting the theology.
Crown Him with Many Crowns must have existed in scores of versions. Hark! the Herald Angel Sings started life as Hark How All the Welkin Rings.
So if this kind of thing is going on constantly anyway, there seems to be little reason not to extend the practice to inclusive language.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
So if this kind of thing is going on constantly anyway, there seems to be little reason not to extend the practice to inclusive language.
Yes, language keeps changing and growing for all sorts of reasons, intentional or not. If you accept a feminist ideology, you'll want to reflect the change in your way of speaking. If you don't, you won't. I don't accept the ideologies of feminism, so I don't feel the need to change my way of speaking in line with the dictates of feminism — unless it's going to be distracting from another point I'm trying to make, which is occasionally. I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
[ 06. June 2005, 10:24: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
Language is not private. You can call yourself what you like, I suppose, but communication requires shared usage and that is why we don't just do our own thing but argue, like we're doing here.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I don't accept the ideologies of feminism, so I don't feel the need to change my way of speaking in line with the dictates of feminism
What on earth is that meant to mean?
You don't except women should have the vote? Or equal pay and employment rights with men? You don't accept women should own property in their own right? You don't accept that women should be able to say no to sex, even to their husband? All those are "ideologies of feminism".
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
I suspect that you do modify your language in line with the dictates of feminism because, if you did not, one of your unfortunate female colleagues would have kneed you in the nuts long since. That or hauled you to a tribunal for sexual discrimination.
If you really don't accept the ideologies of feminism, then I'm more than happy to slug it out with you in hell. If you do acknowledge the rights that feminism has won for women, then why should that not effect your language, even in church?
quote:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Well I'm not a man. I'm a woman, and I prefer to describe myself accordingly. In your church, it seems, I wouldn't have the option.
Peronel.
[ 06. June 2005, 11:12: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Working backwards...
From Gordon Cheng:
quote:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Since you are male, of course you can describe yourself aa a man. But that's not the issue here - it is about describing the whole human race as 'man'.
and also:
quote:
I don't accept the ideologies of feminism,
As has been pointed out, feminism is a very broad movement, so which feminism don't you agree with? On the one end of the scale, the equality of men and women as human persons (remember lots of early theologians did not accept this) or - on the other end of the scale - the need to reconceive of God as the goddess?? (Before anyone tells me, I know this is a blunt polarization...).
Then there was Russ:
quote:
Seems pretty clear to me that inclusive language isn't "really necessary" - because the Church got along without it for hundreds of years.
No- lots of early Christian theology in Latin and Greek was inclusive. The classic example is the Nicene Creed which seems to deliberately prefer inclusive words. Modern inclusive language has become necessary as language has changed - for most of us who advocate it, it is so we can present the (ancient) Gospel message in a contemporary way.
And encore un melon:
quote:
That's fine until your congregation stumbles across Galatians 3, on which the song you mention is based, and which relies upon exclusive language as the basis of its argument.
I'm afraid I don't get this - Gal 3 does not rely on exclusive language as far as I can see and 'Father God' does not seem to be based on that text in any specific way. And most congrgations I've ministered to get a lot of Gal 3...
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
Well, that's OK with me. I don't think our language worlds are so far apart that we can't speak to each other, so we should enjoy our freedoms while they last, and not compel each other to speak in each other's ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Now this representation of what I supposedly think is exactly the sort of ideological fascism that I reject out of hand. It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously. Thankfully the world of "not feminism" is a bit larger than this constrictive prison house represents it as being.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Cross posted with Peronel, who put it much better than me! Perhaps it is significant that a man and a woman both think along the same lines here....
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
lots of early Christian theology in Latin and Greek was inclusive. The classic example is the Nicene Creed which seems to deliberately prefer inclusive words.
That Christian writers have chosen inclusive language sometimes is no surprise. I don't think anyone's arguing against choosing the "inclusive" form where there are two equally good alternative words. That in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free etc is part of the message.
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
Russ
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Now this representation of what I supposedly think is exactly the sort of ideological fascism that I reject out of hand. It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously. Thankfully the world of "not feminism" is a bit larger than this constrictive prison house represents it as being.
Hyperbole, maybe, but hardly "ideological fascism". Feminism, after all, has given women the vote, the right to own property and to refuse sex, and the right to be employed (and paid) equally to men. Within living memory, remember, women were expected to quit work when they wed. So I ask again: what do you reject when you reject the ideologies of feminism?
My arguement is this: were you not modifying your language in accordance with the ideals of feminism this would be how you would speak, because all these phrases were wide-spread and acceptable once.
Given you say that these phrases are a million miles from your own position I can only conclude that feminism has modified your speech from that of your father or your grandfather. Why should the language we use in church be any different?
I'm not a man. Whilst I wouldn't advocate the bowlderisation of much loved hymns, why should new ones be written in such a way as to exclude me? Why should I have to stand up and say, "for us men and for our salvation"? To say that men includes women is a cop-out, because nowhere else does men routinely include women. If it did, I would be able to buy bras from mens clothing stores and use the mens room in theatres. That, at least, would save queueing, although it might cause embarrassment at the urinals.
The sub-text of "for us men and for our salvation" is that I'm an after-thought in God's plan of salvation. After all, its men who are made in the image of God, which makes me just a copy of a copy. Second rate, in fact. That wouldn't be so significant had the church not taught the inferiority of women for so much of its history. The medieval church believed that that women had less developed souls than men, and were not really capable of rationality. Even now a big chunk of the church believes that women are incapable of being priests, in part because they don't fully reflect the male nature of the incarnate christ.
So it's a double whammy. The church has taught the inferior nature of women, a teaching that - intentionally or not - has been reinforced by the gendered nature of its language. That's why inclusive language is important. It's not about whether "Dear Lord and Father of us all" is artistically superior to "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind"; clearly it isn't, and damaging old and well-loved hymns to make them politically correct isn't something that should be undertaken lightly. Rather, it's about how the church uses language now to express the nature and relative significance of men and women, and what that says about my redemption.
Whilst I've been writing this, Russ has posted:
quote:
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
It seems to me that a big part of art (and especially liturgy) is its ability to communicate. Where it not for the communicative potency hymns and prayers would be nothing more than pretty noise. Might make great ambient music cd's, but would be lousy worship. Art and meaning aren't, I would argue, in opposition. Rather, the artistic dimension of "good liturgy" is fundamentally damaged if it conveys - however unintentionally - messages which serve to exclude half of those who participate in it.
"For us and for our salvation" or even "for us men and women and for our salvation" might be linguistically less elegant than the traditional words, but fundamentally what is the purpose of the creed? Is it to string together pleasing sounding words, or is it to express truths about the nature of God and his creation? The latter, it seems to me, is more important when it comes to writing good liturgy.
Peronel.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Not changing your language to fit the dictates of feminism means you'd be quite happy to talk about "the little woman back home", or describe women as "chicks", "dolls", "girls", "babes", etc. To pat your female colleagues on their bums and tell the "little ladies" that they should be looking after their husbands, not out in the workplace.
Gordon Cheng said
quote:
It's a million miles from representing my view accurately, which probably absolves me from having to treat it seriously.
Well, what did you mean then?
quote:
It seems to me that a big part of art (and especially liturgy) is its ability to communicate. Where it not for the communicative potency hymns and prayers would be nothing more than pretty noise. Might make great ambient music cd's, but would be lousy worship. Art and meaning aren't, I would argue, in opposition. Rather, the artistic dimension of "good liturgy" is fundamentally damaged if it conveys - however unintentionally - messages which serve to exclude half of those who participate in it.
"For us and for our salvation" or even "for us men and women and for our salvation" might be linguistically less elegant than the traditional words, but fundamentally what is the purpose of the creed? Is it to string together pleasing sounding words, or is it to express truths about the nature of God and his creation? The latter, it seems to me, is more important when it comes to writing good liturgy.
Peronel.
If the men that originally wrote the liturgy weren't thinking exclusively - women being only fractionally above the levels of animals then, and certainly classed as chattels - then doubtless it would have been "great art". If you are going to write in flowing words and sentences, and still be theologically correct, you will write them, but they will reflect your inclusive or exclusive thinking.
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Agreed. Liturgy by its nature is communicative. If it's communicating a discriminatory subtext* then it is by definition bad liturgy, no matter how flowing the phrases.
Peronel.
*Unless, of course, you intended to convey discrimination. Then it may be good liturgy, but it's lousy theology.
Posted by iGeek. (# 3207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to make the conscious choice to use language that demeans other people is plainly quite wrong.
This the crux of it for me. Taking Paul's admonition to "prefer one another in love", it seems appropriate to stop and listen to what my siblings in Christ are saying and try to respond out of love and respect for their experience.
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on
:
From about age 8 to about age 13, I would recite the creed saying, "for us GIRLS and our salvation." When called on this, I would say that Christ died for all of us, male and female, young and old. Since for centuries the "us men" had been being said, one kid in one church saying "us girls" is not going to cause the downfall of the institution of the church, but it might make people think.
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Several people have called you on this, and as you haven't responded yet, I'll do it again.
Since you object to having your identity as a man subsumed under the umbrella of "person", can you not appreciate that a woman has as much and even more reason to object to having her identity subsumed under the umbrella of "man".
(And of course if a woman can object to sexism then so can a man.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries. If we are to have our liturgy in a language "understanded of the people" we have to avoid using it that way.
It also sounds incredibly pompous these days.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.
And it isn't inclusive. No amount of special pleading here can change that. The ordinary everyday meaning of "man" and "men" in modern English is male.
And Melon, most languages do not have the kind of grammatical gender we are talking about here. Its a little indo-European peculiarity. Other kinds of languages often (not always) have other kinds of systems but they don't alway map on to our ideas of grammatical gender very closely at all. And many of them have nothing resembling it.
Anyway, its all irrelevant because modern English does not have grammatical gender. Insofar as ships are described by female words it is because we metaphorise them as female - a matter of sex, not gender. The word "man" is not masculine in English, it is male. We only have the barest remnants of grammatical gender. Treating English as if it were Latin produces sloppy English.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
HoosierNan - a girl with Attitude!
A slight tangent - but pertinent to the development of modern and future discourse, if not the past - what is the current received wisdom when writing about people of both sexes? When I used to write essays, the thinking was first that you should use he/she, then it changed to using she and he interchangeably, then to using either he or she (but usually she) with a rider that this was for ease of use, not for discriminatory purposes.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.
Timothy
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I use "they" without apology ever since I looked it up in the OED (the old one) and found that the singular pronoun usage was actually listed among the definitions, with citations going back to Carlisle.
So they missed out Milton & Shakespeare?
It's always been at least in colloquial use as a singular, for as long as there has been an English language.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
with the intro from Star Trek: The Next Generation,
quote:
to boldly go where no one has gone before
(To hear this for yourself, there's are WAV files of the Star Trek intros from http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/star-trek.htm.)
It has only been relatively recently that it stopped being acceptable for "man" or "men" to be used as generic pronouns that did not necessarily indicate gender.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
But that is not ordinary everyday speech. It was deliberatly written to sound a high-toned and old-fashioned. No-one speaks like that unless they are trying to sound pretentious. And Star Trek TOS was famously pretentious.
quote:
It has only been relatively recently that it stopped being acceptable for "man" or "men" to be used as generic pronouns that did not necessarily indicate gender.
Whether or not it is acceptable, it has been centuries since it was colloquial.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
The church has taught the inferior nature of women, a teaching that - intentionally or not - has been reinforced by the gendered nature of its language. That's why inclusive language is important. It's not about whether "Dear Lord and Father of us all" is artistically superior to "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind"; clearly it isn't, and damaging old and well-loved hymns to make them politically correct isn't something that should be undertaken lightly. Rather, it's about how the church uses language now to express the nature and relative significance of men and women, and what that says about my redemption.
Pepone, I love you and want to have your babies!
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
Star Trek TOS cast women in two roles. Glorified secretaries, who answered phones (in the case of Uhura) or held charts (Nurse Chapel) or babes for Kirk to shag. Either way, they were dressed in tights and skirts so short it's amazing you couldn't see hair.
Using Star Trek as an example of how "men" can be gender-inclusive is nonsensical. I have no doubt that in the minds of the show's authors, it was men who were the bold explorers. Women were assistants and paper holders (frequently), objects of pity (occassionally), and desirable sexually (almost always). Frankly, I think the women in our churches deserve better.
Further, the comparison shows this: whilst "man" might have been acceptable once, it is no longer. If the telly can change one of the most recognisable intros ever, then why can't the church?
Peronel.
[preview post was not my friend]
[ 06. June 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The question, it seems to me, is about "really necessary". Is this an absolute requirement ? Is gender politics such a dominant concern that all other considerations - such as the artistic dimension of "what is good liturgy" - must be swept aside ?
I think that, theologically speaking, it's imperative. The secular culture in which Jesus lived was all about ranking people in the order of their "worldly" importance. One of Jesus' central messages was that God does not recognise this human ranking of people in order of importance. Once society realised that it was doing to women what it had done to slaves (for example), there is absolutely no question that this form of "ranking" had to be viewed as unGodly.
IMO, Christians can't sacrifice this awareness that we are all morally level in God's sight any more than it can sacrifice concepts such as sin, forgiveness or redemption. IMO nothing can be "good liturgy" that "drip feeds" the idea that women are not 100% members of the human race.
I never thought I'd do the phrase "Young people today..." but here it goes... Most people today take the equality of the sexes for granted and that makes me happy because it means that the feminism of my youth - the one that wanted genuine equality and not false female 'superiority' - was successful. However, we should not forget that there are women still alive like my mother who lived well into middle age before the concept ever came about in society that they were in any sense equal to men.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways.
I am just trying to show how forced and sometimes ridiculous some of the arguments are. Obviously, I wasn't communicating well.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?
So what?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
He, she or it, its still a split infinitive!
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
I believe if you'll go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well?
The French can do whatever they want, and people in French churches can make their own decisions about whether and how to make the language they use inclusive of women. These are very context-specific decisions, so as an English speaker and an American I would not presume to suggest to the French would they should do. If Frenchwomen feel excluded by the liturgical language they hear in church, then they are, thank goodness, free to protest and to suggest changes. But whether or not the French choose to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun has absolutely no bearing on whether "men" means "women too" in English--it just doesn't.
[ 06. June 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
I believe if you'll go back and read what I wrote, you'll see that I did. In fact you'll also find I said absolutely nothing about whether "man" includes or excludes women.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Using Star Trek as an example of how "men" can be gender-inclusive is nonsensical.
Not really. The idea of using a masculine pronoun as a generic pronoun is arguably sexist, especially in a language that doesn't have the widespread gender inflections that the Romance languages do. And as you pointed out, Star Trek was indeed sexist--as were the times in general. I'm not arguing with the idea that "men" is a bad choice for an inclusive plural, only that it has only been relatively recently recognized as a bad choice.
BTW, ken, I think that you are right in "man" stopped being a colloquial generic pronoun, but, AFAIK, it is only relatively recently that it stopped being formally correct as well.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The examples, which some will know well, of man and men, and he and him being used as genuinely inclusive terms strike us as comic today. 'In the beginning God had but one pair of men in Paradise.' Or the famous paper on 'The development of the uterus in the guinea pig, the horse, and man.' Or something that goes like 'As the typical Londoner gets dressed in the morning, pulling on his tights and wriggling into his dress...'
I like to wonder, if Tereshkova had gone before Gagarin, whether she would have been described as the first man in space. If it had happened in the 1460s she might have been. In 1960s, no way.
Posted by Paul Mason (# 7562) on
:
Question for those opposed to inclusive language: what, apart from aesthetics, have you got to lose?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totallty disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I like to wonder, if Tereshkova had gone before Gagarin, whether she would have been described as the first man in space. If it had happened in the 1460s she might have been. In 1960s, no way.
True. OTOH, if you are talking about a hypothetical person, it still would have been acceptable in the 1960s to use "he" rather than "he or she." Today, we would all but have to use "he or she," "one", use plural forms so that "they" could be used, or to state explicitly that one was going to use "he" as a generic pronoun or alternate between "he" and "she."
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
... I don't think you can have it both ways.
I am just trying to show how forced and sometimes ridiculous some of the arguments are. Obviously, I wasn't communicating well.
Yeah, I suspected that you were trying to make the argument look ridiculous, but I don't think it is. I suspect that we'll have to leave it at that. You could call me to Hell, of course, but I have no interest in going there.
As far as the French are concerned, they can do what they want. If you don't believe that language has an effect on the way people think, I can tell you a story about taking a beginning Italian class which was almost entirely populated with Francophone Belgians who got mightily exercised when the gender of some noun in Italian differed from the gender in French (being two Latin languages, the genders are very often the same). Sit in on a class where people are trying to insist for 45 minutes that a car[1] is feminine and can't possibly be masculine in any language because cars are "feminine" things. Then tell me that language doesn't shape the way a person thinks.
[1] Actually "automobile" is feminine in both languages, but I can't think of an example of where the gender differs between Italian and French at the moment.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
In the olden days (not any more nowadays) the favorite U.S. reductio ad absurdum against inclusive language went something like this:
"I think I shall go out to my person-box to see if the person-person has brought me any person today."
But in actual practice, all one need say is of course "I think I shall go out to my mailbox to see if the mail-carrier has brought me any mail today."
Over the years, one remains sensitive, while learning to eschew over-sensitivity.
Leetle M.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
In the olden days (not any more nowadays) the favorite U.S. reductio ad absurdum against inclusive language went something like this:
"I think I shall go out to my person-box to see if the person-person has brought me any person today."
But in actual practice, all one need say is of course "I think I shall go out to my mailbox to see if the mail-carrier has brought me any mail today."
Over the years, one remains sensitive, while learning to eschew over-sensitivity.
Leetle M.
Although I know this view is supportive, I'd like to start at the beginning here. My original statement was along the lines of "Let's use the word 'humanity' as it is commonly understood to include both men and women whereas the term 'mankind' is no longer commonly understood to be inclusive and is understood by many to be sexist".
The reply, which is totally illogical to me, was "You can't use the word 'humanity' because it has 'man' in it." This is supposed to make my view look ridiculous?
I never said I was offended by the masculine. I never said I wanted to obliterate the letter-sequence m-a-n. I never said that I wanted to get rid of the the words 'man', 'male', or even more ridiculously 'mail'. It's very telling what people infer.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!
Sorry!
Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo (emphasis mine):
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totally disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
I am struck by that word, I think that is probably how I feel about the use of men and man, not excluded but disengaged. It is only speaking to me at one remove, while I guess for most men it is speaking directly to them. As I feel it is still speaking to me I do not feel excluded.
Jengie
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."
Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.
quote:
Ariel said:
Well a) it does look rather old-fashioned and b) it comes across as patriarchal which are two reasons why people don't go to church as often as they used to.
Ha! If that were true all these churches that have "inclusive" hymns and say "for us and our salvation" would be PACKED.
On the contrary, the "liberal" mainline churches that fiddle with the words to make themselves "inviting and inclusive" seem to be the ones hemorrhaging members.
The mega-Bible-churches that are growing by leaps and bounds seem to be quite straightforward in their maintenance of male-headship doctrines.
How does that work?
And ken says that "men" isn't used in "everyday" speech to refer to men and women. Well, gee. In "everyday" speech we don't tend to think that saying a few pretty words over a water biscuit makes a "sacrifice" anymore than we talk about a "Paraclete." Why should church be like "everyday" life?
I've said before that I think it's astonishing that one can imagine that someone new to Christianity has a shot at grasping the operation of the Holy Communion or comprehending the mystery of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, but these same people are too stupid to figure out that "for us men and our salvation" doesn't mean that 80% of the congregation are unsaved.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
Or 4. a woman who prefers traditional language over inclusive language. Not all women want the same thing at the same time--another lesson from feminism.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Oh, dear, Seeker, that latest post of mine wasn't directed toward anything you said! It was just for a bit of comic relief!
Sorry!
Leetle M.
getting everything totally wrong today--it must be the heat....
Gosh, Leetle M. No. You didn't get anything wrong. Sorry, I knew your post was supposed to be supportive.
It just seemed to me that the "male" "mail" thing was exactly the sort of argument I was being told I was using when I wasn't doing anything of the sort.
Forgive me for taking advantage of your supportive post to make a point.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
As Ken has said, French has grammatical gender, which happens in part to correspond to natural gender. English however has natural gender. Some languages have grammatical gender that does not correspond at all to natural gender (Kiswahili is an example of this - conventionally it is said to have noun classes but they work exactly like grammatical gender). Speakers of these languages find it hard to use "he" and "she" correctly, which is very confusing for native English speakers. Speakers of languages like French that have grammatical gender that does, in part, correspond to natural gender, find mistakes made by foreigners in gender confusing. Speakers of different languages process gender differently. Not too surprising, really.
Liturgy has changed over the centuries: either it changed once in 1662 for you, or it has changed several times since then. I don't see what was so special about 1662 - one assumes that the BCP was intended to reflect language usage of the time, since people had stopped speaking Latin, so I don't see why we should not have (poetic, well-written) liturgy in language of our time.
Hymns change less, but many of them have been translated, again presumably into poetic but contemporary language, and many of them have also been changed to become more comprehensible. They are not the same as poetry (which also gets translated into modern English, on occasion - e.g. Beowulf), but we still change things that can be drastically misunderstood, as singing is participatory in the way that poetry is not.
HT, I wonder if you have actually asked any of your fellow parishioners whether they feel that "men" refers to them? For all you know, they are standing there replacing "men" with "girls" like HoosierNan.
[ 06. June 2005, 21:37: Message edited by: chukovsky ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Further to what chukovski wrote, I remember several years ago talking to a (male) friends and his female co-worker with their church's youth program. This was in the UK. We were talking about inclusive language, recognizing that the situation was not the same in our two conutnries, and to make his point, he turned to here and said words to the effect that "you're not bothered by all that, are you". He was gobsmacked when she replied that "Yes I am -- there's just no point in mentioning it."
John
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
Several people have called you on this, and as you haven't responded yet, I'll do it again.
G'day Steve, sorry, I was on Oz time which means I needed my beauty sleep; not something that anyone lightly calls on me to miss.
quote:
Since you object to having your identity as a man subsumed under the umbrella of "person", can you not appreciate that a woman has as much and even more reason to object to having her identity subsumed under the umbrella of "man".
Sure, I do see the objection, and if I was a woman and felt that this was the underlying intention of the language being used, I would register that objection.
However—and this is especially so given the history of the English language—using the word "man" to describe "men and women" may be occurring for a range of reasons, and quite possibly none of them to do with sexism. I still occasionally visit churches where people say "for us men and for our salvation"—including the women (similar to the point made by Hooker's Trick). Although I haven't gone 'round checking after each meeting, I am almost certain that the women who join in saying "for us men and for our salvation" believe themselves to be included in that salvation, and that they would laugh to scorn any suggestion that they weren't*. If I happen to say in a sermon that "Mankind are responsible for extraordinary displays of sinfulness and ignorance", I have never yet been picked up for non-inclusive language—people seem to have rightly assumed that I am talking about everyone.
*On the odd occasion, they might not laugh. In fact, with enough coaching some might come to believe that the intention really was to exclude them, despite the evidence of their eyes and ears. But one of my complaints against some types of feminism would be that it asks men and women to take offense where none was intended, on grounds that have been asserted rather than argued for.
When I meet someone from a different cultural or ideological background, and they use words in a slightly different way from me, I normally don't assume first off that they are doing so in order to offend me or people like me. If I am offended, I am generally straightforward enough in my way of speaking to ask the person if offence was intended. This is generally enough to clarify what is going on, without me requiring them to change their way of speaking as well.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
Some random musings about gender and language.
I like Spiffy's new gender-neutral pronoun, "em," but I know it's not likely to cath on widely. Although languages change, pronouns change very, very slowly, far more slowly than other words. But there is clearly a felt need here for some other word -- Littlest One was saying yesterday that he'd like to have a word to refer to beings who don't have a gender, or when you don't know the gender. He doesn't like referring to God and the angels as "he." He knows that's not quite right, but our language as it stands doesn't offer an appropriate alternative.
When Eldest Son was in preschool, he coined the word "shiz" to use as a singular possessive pronoun. I rather liked it.
But I know that language in conservative fields, such as law and religion, changes more slowly than language in common use. Law relies on precedent, religion (for some of us, anyway) relies on long-established consensus. In legal documents, my sister is the executrix of our father's estate. In common usage, she's the executor.
That's because, in common usage, feminine-specific forms are all but dead. You can't refer to a woman as an aviatrix or a poetess with a straight face. Those words are obsolete.
As feminine forms have become obsolete, masculine forms have come to be considered gender-neutral. My grandmother received a mistress of arts degree. I received a master of arts, and never thought for a second that there was anything odd about it, at all. There must have been a transitional time when neither choice seemed quite right, when awarding a woman a master's degree seemed to deny or exclude, while a mistress's degree seemed to patronize.
I think we're still in that transitional time with respect to gender and language. Some things are still unsettled. I would have expected "man" and "mankind" to be accepted as gender-neutral, as other formerly masculine words have been, but that's not the way things seem to be going. I'm not sure why.
But in the mean time, until this phase of linguistic change is complete, it seems to me good to assume that, whatever word choice someone else has made, they mean well, unless you have other evidence to the contrary.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
Gordon - the point is not that churchgoers think the liturgy was written deliberately to exclude them. The point is that churchgoers do not normally themselves use these words to include themselves, and so it jars when they are asked to use the words as part of a church service.
Although in some cases I have my suspicions about the intentions of the liturgy- and hymn-writers (like the ordination hymn described above).
And we're still waiting to hear what exactly you reject about feminism.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
On the contrary, the "liberal" mainline churches that fiddle with the words to make themselves "inviting and inclusive" seem to be the ones hemorrhaging members.
The mega-Bible-churches that are growing by leaps and bounds seem to be quite straightforward in their maintenance of male-headship doctrines.
I don't buy it. The liberal mainline churches aren't declining because they are using inclusive language. Their problems are many, but that isn't one of them.
I have never even heard of the "mega-Bible-churches" insisting on male headship.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
What about other ways to be more inclusive which don't involve "men" v. "humanity" or gender pronoun issues?
For example, instead of "The God of Abraham and Isaac," why not say "The God of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca"? Obviously, this can't be done when things need to scan, but they can certainly be included in the spoken part of the liturgy.
What was fascinating to me (on a number of levels) was that when we added precisely that language to BCP Eucharistic Prayer C (ECUSA), a member of the congregation objected strenuously because it wasn't "BIBLICAL." After a half-hour conversation spent ascertaining that he really was objecting on those grounds, not because we were making changes to the approved text, I was left wondering where exactly he thought we got their names. (BTW, we had received the Bishop's approval for the addition).
What about the pronoun "one" - as in "Blessed is one who...." as opposed to "Blessed is he/she who....."?
While I think we should use inclusive language, I also think we should try to use it well - which is ultimately going to take a lot more effort that swapping a few pronouns around.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But one of my complaints against some types of feminism would be that it asks men and women to take offense where none was intended, on grounds that have been asserted rather than argued for.
Offense may be given without having been consciously intended. It's courteous to change one's ways or speech accordingly when this is the case. If people are offended, they're offended--they are not required to mount an argument in defense of their feelings.
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
What about the pronoun "one" - as in "Blessed is one who...." as opposed to "Blessed is he/she who....."?
This is probably best handled by the plural, i.e. "Blessed are they who . . . ."
"Blessed is one who" seems a bit stilted, and "Blessed is he/she who....." sounds positively awful.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
And we're still waiting to hear what exactly you reject about feminism.
I don't reject feminism out of hand. There are all sorts of elements of feminism I would endorse.
Some examples. At Melbourne University, where I worked for more than ten years, I believe the women's college "Janet Clarke Hall" was started by evangelical Christian women in the 19th century to help in the training and teaching of women. That's just one example of evangelicals doing something practical to improve the situation of women. Catherine Hamlin's fistula hospital in Addis Ababa would be another random example of evangelicals —and frequently, evangelical women—working to improve the status of women.
But you asked what I rejected about feminism. I think I would reject the idea held and taught by some feminists that patriarchy is of necessity and by definition oppressive. There may be other consequences of this view that I would also take exception to, on a case by case basis.
As I've said, though, a lot of the other practical positive outworkings of feminism would be good and worthy of support and promotion by evangelical Christians—indeed, have been supported and promoted by evangelical Christians.
That's a bit off topic, but I'm trying to give you a sense of how I would answer. On topic, I am not persuaded by the reforms of language that are insisted upon by some feminists, so therefore I haven't reformed my way of speaking to any great extent. Still, it would be silly to do something if you weren't persuaded it was a good idea, wouldn't it?
[ 06. June 2005, 22:16: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
So if someone is not persuaded that calling me "sweetie" at work is a bad idea, despite the fact that they barely know me and I have asked them not to do so, they are justified in persisting in their discourtesy? My feelings on the subject just don't count?
[ 06. June 2005, 22:20: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Ruth, pre or post language reform, it would never occur to me to call you "dear" or "honey"; or any woman for that matter. But if someone asked me to change my way of speaking on grounds of courtesy and at a personal level, all things being equal, I would.
On the other hand, if I was addressing the issue on a public bulletin board, I might suggest on that bulletin board that there were other ways of viewing the situation rather than being offended by it—not the specific example you raise, but a number of the others.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
People offend me without meaning to on a fairly regular basis by calling me "dear" and "honey" and the like at work. I can explain why this offends me, but I don't have to justify it. It's usually not worth bothering about, but when I am going to be dealing frequently with someone who calls me something I find inappropriate, I ask them to call me "Ruth," and they invariably do so--it's basic courtesy.
Ruth, pre or post language reform, it would never occur to me to call you "dear" or "honey"; or any woman for that matter. But if someone asked me to change my way of speaking on grounds of courtesy and at a personal level, all things being equal, I would.
On the other hand, if I was addressing the issue on a public bulletin board, I might suggest on that bulletin board that there were other ways of viewing the situation rather than being offended by it—not the specific example you raise, but a number of the others.
Like what?
And are we simply to decide we are not offended when in fact we are? My response to "us men and our salvation" is no less visceral than my response to being called "sweetie" by someone who is almost a stranger to me.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Gordon, you seem to be happy to retreat from any of your opinions when challenged on them, so I'll have a go at your claim that patriarchy is not necessarily and by definition oppressive.
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
HT, I wonder if you have actually asked any of your fellow parishioners whether they feel that "men" refers to them? For all you know, they are standing there replacing "men" with "girls" like HoosierNan.
Funnily enough, I have not actually gone round to the fairer members of my congregation and inquired if they, like HoosierNan, replace words of the liturgy. However, ours is a large and growing parish, so presumably any ladies who objected to "for us men and our salvation" would go to another parish.
quote:
JJ Ramsey said
I don't buy it. The liberal mainline churches aren't declining because they are using inclusive language. Their problems are many, but that isn't one of them.
Um, that's not what I'm saying. Ariel said no one goes to church anymore because the churches are patriarchal (and we know this because we say "goodwill toward men"). If that's really true, then wouldn't people FLOCK back to churches that said "goodwill toward people?"
quote:
I have never even heard of the "mega-Bible-churches" insisting on male headship.
I will readily admit that this is an area in which I have little experience, but I wonder if you can find me some mega-bible-churches that have lady pastors?
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Melon, way back on the first page, opined: quote:
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
I don't agree with this at all, specifically relating to the use of man, men, mankind. You go into a girls' school and you will find huge resistance to the idea that they can be subsumed into the general man, men, mankind. As you say, they will say what they want to say, and it isn't that they are men, even grammatically.
Our school choir sang at the Women's Convention that was held over the weekend. They found it fascinating, and it was equally fascinating listening to them talk about what they'd heard. And I was encouraged to hear them deciding that they might be feminists, since feminism included some hugely successful older women, and some very forthright younger women.
Language shapes the way we think. My boss, who is very hot on gender inclusive language, writes his reports using his or her and she or he entirely interchangeably.
One of the traps you find in early medical textbooks, for instance, is the the doctor is always referred to as male, and the patient, unless it is a text on male-specific problems, is almost always female. Some older doctors of my acquaintance still think like this. If you are sick you are in a subordinate position, the position of the woman. It affects the way they think about, talk to, and treat patients.
And this is so much more true of the church, where there is still strong resistance, over the church global, to women in positions of leadership. Inclusive language is a tiny step, and if you've read it badly done, then you haven't been creative enough!
Tangent: In the case of Dear Lord and Father, I prefer the words by Timothy Hurd for the same tune, which start "God comes to us as one unknown".
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Gordon, you seem to be happy to retreat from any of your opinions when challenged on them
I'd be surprised if you could find one example of me doing that on this thread?
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
RuthW: Unlike your examples of "dear", "honey" and "sweetie" (which are not examples of gender exclusive language, but examples of the language of endearment inappropriately applied), your example of "for us men and for our salvation" is actually an example where a person's feeling offended is not in and of itself sufficient reason to change the language.
If it was sufficient, then I could argue that I would be offended by the language being changed, and that would be sufficient to retain traditional usage. I think you'd agree that me being offended in such a situation would not be enough to override the need for change. So 'being offended' is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned. At this point I agree with John Cleese: "You do not have the right not to be offended".
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
The right to power is irrelevant. There is power. Who decides what job someone will do? Whom they will marry? How they will dress, spend their time? The right to make decisions of this sort, the power to do so, will be exercised by someone. In a patriarchal society it will be exercised by men but not women. That is what patriarchal means. It is clearly oppressive.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
From Gordon:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Surely the definition of the world does indeed and precisely imply oppression. Patriarchy means rule by fathers (and uncles, husbands, grandparents, brothers, etc.) not by women. Rule means the exercise of power in some way. So for a society to be accurately described as patriarchal the women in it must in at least some areas have to surrender their rights to the men. How is that not oppressive?
Only if you assume we have an innate right to power. I don't assume that. I take the more traditional view expressed in the Lord's Prayer:
"For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
now and forever, Amen".
The having and giving of power belongs to our heavenly Father, and to him alone.
I want to be very sure I'm not misinterpreting your point, Gordon. Are you saying that Christian patriarchies are not oppressive because they are divinely ordained? That while no one has an innate right to power to rule over others, God has invested that right in men?*
*by which I mean "male," lest there be any misunderstanding.
[ 06. June 2005, 23:50: Message edited by: Sienna ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.
Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's because, in common usage, feminine-specific forms are all but dead. You can't refer to a woman as an aviatrix or a poetess with a straight face. Those words are obsolete.
Those words are, but as the quote from hatless points out, other words have been created because women felt excluded. As a teenager, reading the Chalet School books, I disliked the fact that Jo was often referred to as an `authoress' because I felt that it demeaned her -- she was seen as not being as good as an man who was an author. Thus, then I agreed with your point. Now however, (having learnt various languages which are gendered (although in the case of the one in which I am most fluent -- Welsh -- the gendering is not that strong)), I understand that it wasn't the case that Elinor M. Brent-Dyer was demeaning Jo (and by implication herself as an authoress) but recognising that author is a masculine form of a word and so logically, because she is a woman she should be an authoress. I suspect the fact that deaconesses were not merely female deacons influenced the fact that I found the -ess suffice demeaning! I consciously call myself a myfyfwraig `female student' rather than a myfyriwr a (male) student when speaking Welsh, because I am a woman!
What intrigues me is the way in which the -or suffice has come to be seen as gender-neutral (and so feminine forms as demeaning) but at the same time, the -man suffice (which could be said to be gender-neutral as man has the sense 'man-not-animal') has come to be seen as exclusively male and so we have to talk of chairwomen.
Cricket, however, throws up an interesting one. I remember a discussion at a match 4 or 5 years ago, when the (male) umpire (who was probably retired) asked us whether we wanted to be called batsmen or batswomen. The unanimous opinion was batsmen. My reasoning was that calling us something different from the men implied that we weren't equal to them (so more like my reaction to authoress). In the case of twelfth man,* twelfth woman merely sounds ridiculous!
Secondly `us men and our salvation':
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
"For us men and our salvation" comes from the pen of a man who really isn't considering women as being worthy of mention, maybe not even of salvation!
If there had been several women at the Council of Nicea doubtless the Nicene Creed would have come out a bit differently, but still in flowing language.
Actually the Greek doesn't say that - the original wording is inclusive, it is only the English mistranslation as the word "men" that isn't.
Calling it a mistranslation is not entirely fair. In 16th century English, I would argue that it was a valid use of 'men' in the plural of the 'man-not-animal' sense.** What I really object to is the fact that rather than replacing the bad translation with say 'humans' modern versions have omitted the word entirely which is a worse mistranslation and leads to potentially more exclusive readings (as I and Mousethief have already argued) because whilst a woman saying the creed is included by having said 'us', one could read `us' in a very narrow way (and excluding those not saying the creed), when the creed-writers meant the whole human race!
Thirdly, a couple of random comments about examples which have been thrown in:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
"Man" includes both male and female
But in ordinary everyday speech it doesn't, and hasn't for centuries.
The "for centuries" part is wrong. To pick a fairly famous example, compare the intro to the original Star Trek,
quote:
to boldly go where no man has gone before
with the intro from Star Trek: The Next Generation,
quote:
to boldly go where no one has gone before
This `updating' has always bugged me. If they're going where no-one has gone before then how come they meet people (in a loose sense -- humanoids!)? My first thought was `why didn't they change man to humans' but then I thought well, the crew is mixed species so actually what they mean is 'where no member of the Federation has been before'!
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you want the French to develop a genderless third person plural pronoun as well? They use "ils" when it is a group of two or more containing at least one male. So a group of 1 man and 999 women is masculine.
I actually like this. It means that you can be explicit about excluding men (because elles says the group is all female) but you can't exclude women because all ils says is that there is at least one man!
Fourthly, exclusion by she/her (which follows from the last in some ways:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I once read an article aimed at primary school RE teachers. As a secondary (male) RE teacher, I felt totallty disengaged by all the references to 'she'and 'her'. That must be how many women feel in churches that don't use inclusive language.
Actually, I think that what you felt is probably stronger than what most women feel in Church. When I read something where she is used as the generic pronoun, I notice and my first thought is that the person has presumed an all female situation in some ways. He has a history as a generic pronoun in a way that she (currently at least) doesn't and so she makes far more of a point.
Carys
*Cricket does not allow substitutes in the way that most sports do, but if a fielder is injured they can be replaced in the field but the replacement cannot bowl. Nor can they bat in the other innings -- an injured batsmen either retires hurt or has a runner (i.e. they still hit the ball but someone else runs between the wickets on their behalf). Teams will generally have a 'twelfth man' who will be a spare fielder and also do stuff like take drinks, or replacement gloves, bats etc onto the pitch.
**I will admit that as I general rule, I can see man as generic (as in mankind) but struggle more with being included in men, but the 'us' in the creed makes it clear (to me at least) that this includes me (or how could I say us?). Similarly I'm glad that `fellow men' in the confession has become (even in CW Order 1 Traditional language) `neighbours' although again, the fellow meant that I knew it must include me.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The right to power is irrelevant. There is power. Who decides what job someone will do? Whom they will marry? How they will dress, spend their time? The right to make decisions of this sort, the power to do so, will be exercised by someone. In a patriarchal society it will be exercised by men but not women. That is what patriarchal means. It is clearly oppressive.
I rather think you assume what you are trying to prove. When God exercises his divinely-ordained power to determine our times and places (Acts 17:26), is he being oppressive? What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I want to be very sure I'm not misinterpreting your point, Gordon. Are you saying that Christian patriarchies are not oppressive because they are divinely ordained? That while no one has an innate right to power to rule over others, God has invested that right in men?
There are several separate questions here. I am not even sure what you mean by "Christian patriarchy". Patriarchies may be oppressive, indeed Genesis 3:16b suggests that the normal order of things in a fallen world will be that men seek to oppress women, and women seek to oppress men, but that men generally win. (I'm not saying this is good, I'm just observing what the Bible spells out as one consequence of sin). The problem is with sin, not patriarchy.
I'm not convinced that the Bible mandates or even endorses patriarchy, just that it doesn't disendorse it. and certainly I find no biblical support for the proposition that patriarchy is necessarily and inherently oppressive. This proposition seems to be an underlying assumption of many forms of contemporary feminism, and I reject it.
Hosts: I'm not trying to wander off topic, I'm attempting to answer questions that are put to me. Please let me know if you want me to desist!
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.
Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I'm not a person, I'm a man, so I prefer to describe myself accordingly.
I don't think you have that freedom. To me you are a person. I insist on giving you that designation, and it is one of great respect from my point of view.
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?
It's just the same as hymns. Titles and names put words into other people's mouths. How I hate the margarine that calls itself 'I can't believe it's not butter.' I can't refer to it like that without advertising it to myself!
I wouldn't refer to a woman as a chairman any more than I would call a black person a darkie, whatever they told me they preferred.
The term manageress is interesting, because it ought to parallel manager, but in practice is only used of women who run canteens or shops. A female bank manager (now that we have them) would never be called a manageress.
((Incidentally, I originally wrote about a woman bank manager. This is a familiar construction: woman minister, woman doctor, but is never used the other way round. You never hear of a man minister, or men doctors. It bothers me. Is the claim that there are female ministers too radical, because it suggests that minister might be female, rather than just claiming that women can be (masculine stand in) ministers?))
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.
I'm sure that you are not suggesting that because I say "for us men and our salvation" in church that I think women are unsaved or secondary in God's salvific grace?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
You'll have to explain that. To me it's obvious that if someone exercises power over another person they are being oppressive. Patriarchy is men arrogating power that might otherwise be exercised by women. Please explain.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
What I mean is, you seem to be assuming that if someone exercises power, they are being oppressive. If this is so, then you are committing a non sequitur.
You'll have to explain that. To me it's obvious that if someone exercises power over another person they are being oppressive. Patriarchy is men arrogating power that might otherwise be exercised by women. Please explain.
Oh, sure—but I thought my example of God exercising power over us showed that there is no inherent oppression in the exercise of power.
But let me give another example. My four year old would run our house, if we allowed her to do so. The main obstacles at the moment to this occurring are my two year old and my six year old, who harbour their own ambitions.
Furthermore, be in no doubt as to my four year old's capacity and capability to rule. "I want icecream, now!" "I want to watch TV, now!". Most of the time, her wishes don't threaten her life or wellbeing in any appreciable way. Sometimes, we give her what she wants. In years to come, we may altogether cease to resist her will. But that we use our power to resist at this time does not (I believe) constitute a form of oppression.
Of course, you will respond that the dynamics of a parent-child relationship are quite different from those of a husband-wife relationship, or from a government-society relationship. I agree. I am making a far more specific point: that the exercise of power need not of necessity imply oppression, no matter how much outrage is generated by the one whose will is frustrated.
Your point is that patriarchy is always oppressive. I understand this point, but it still needs to be argued for; what's more I've given you at least two counter-examples from analogus situations that suggest exceptions to your rule.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
This thread would make no sense at all without the underlying understanding by nearly all posters that women have been (and frequently still are) seen as inferior to men. One would think that alone would be enough to make the opponents of inclusive language change their minds. Apparently not.
And women are stupid or malicious if they don't "understand" they're included. "Of course you're saved, honey. How could you doubt it? Now run along and get the coffee made for the coffee hour, would you?" Certainly no mixed message in the church like there so frequently are in real life, as it were.
But what's puzzling me is this: it's all about allocation of resources. That's the point of power. So you can be sure you've got your share and them some of food, water and shelter from the elements. But what is the power in a church situation that is being threatened by inclusive language? Do some fear there is only so much salvation to go around? Because they are very obviously being threatened. I'm just not sure I understand in what way.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
well - I think to a certain extent we *do* opress our children. But this is acecptable, we limit their freedom because they are children and we know one day they will grow up to be adults.
Using that argument can justify "oppression" or "seperate but equal" of blacks and whites... I dont see the difference between that and "oppression" or "seperate but equal of male/female.
Saying there is something *inately* wrong/different about women that they arent capable (ie childlike/ lesser brain/ made differently/whatever) is similar to the *inately* differentness used to justify segregation.
bad and wrong
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But what is the power in a church situation that is being threatened by inclusive language? Do some fear there is only so much salvation to go around?
The answer to your second question is "no". The answer to the first question is "possibly none". But on the other hand, those arguing for inclusive language sometimes suggest that men and women should share equal power. As I don't believe this to be the case, I tend to avoid inclusive language.
I think both sides of this discussion would probably feel that their language should reflect their theological assumptions, without necessarily feeling obliged to impute nasty motives to those who hold another view from their own.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Language shapes the way we think.
I'm sure that you are not suggesting that because I say "for us men and our salvation" in church that I think women are unsaved or secondary in God's salvific grace?
Not you personally, no. But you don't have to go very far backwards into Christian history to find examples of writers who thought exactly that. You don't have to go back at all, really, there are people who behave and speak as though this is the case right now.
Calvin, to take my favourite example, treats all the strong women in the bible as though God only uses them to shame men. Calvin doesn't see any woman (except Mary the mother of Jesus) as anything near as human as a man. His twisting logic supplies an almost funny exegesis of the story of Deborah, for instance. She is told off by Calvin for usurping men's place. He cannot see any good reason for her role except that "the men of the time" were weak and thus needed the rebuke of a woman in charge.
Calvin had an undeniable influence on the Protestant churches well into the last century. It is that history and others like it which make women like me very wary of any use of the word "men". It doesn't mean that anyone who uses it is automatically antiwomen. However, those who argue that it must remain I tend to view with some suspicion, whether they are women or men.
And I hold to my point about the current teenage generation - the young women are not going to accept the use of "men" for themselves as they grow up.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon, I'm not sure what a Christian patricharchy would be, either, which is why I was confused about your point. It seemed like you might be saying that patriarchies were okay because God had set things up that way - thanks for the clarification.
I think the reason your example of God's absolute, loving power over creation as an illustration that power over others isn't inherently wrong is not entirely helpful because:
1. it's not one that's found in intra-personal relations, much less in societies/governments; and
2. is based on relations between God Almighty and lowly humans, not how we relate to one another. It's sort of like discussing the power relationship between me and a bug crawling across the floor and comparing it to the power relationship between me and my husband, only the extent of God's superiority to me is far greater than mine to the bug. I don't believe we do have "rights" with respect to God, only the grace we receive, but I do believe we have rights with respect to one another - and it's those rights that are relevant to the patriarchy discussion.
However, in an effort to bring this back on topic (although I think we always end up on the patriarchy tangent because it's difficult to discuss why gender inclusive language is important without exploring those related issues):
If "offense" isn't enough reason to change language, what about a sense of exclusion, or an inability to connect to the Gospel message? Because while I personally don't feel that sense of distancing or exclusion from non-inclusive language, many, many women do.
If adding "and Sarah" after "The God of Abraham" or saying "Blessed are they" or "blessed is one" instead of "blessed is he" during the Eucharistic Prayer helps change that, why shouldn't we change our language? I can't see any great truth we're losing in those changes, or any doctrine that's been violated. If it helps those who struggle without violating Scripture or doctrine, isn't that what we should be doing?
ETA: and what Sine said.
[ 07. June 2005, 01:49: Message edited by: Sienna ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
those arguing for inclusive language sometimes suggest that men and women should share equal power. As I don't believe this to be the case, I tend to avoid inclusive language.
I should think you would. And rightly so, from your point of view. Language is powerful. Magic, in fact.
quote:
I think both sides of this discussion would probably feel that their language should reflect their theological assumptions, without necessarily feeling obliged to impute nasty motives to those who hold another view from their own.
"Nasty"? Your word, not mine. Guilty conscience, Gordon? But if it's not about power, and power isn't about allocation of resources, I wish you'd tell me what you do think it's about?
I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Gordon --
I guess I'm the first Host to read your request. As a Host, I see no problems with what you have been posting. You are all keeping your tempers, and as long as that continues, all is well.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on
:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.
That way, we could get around the whole "men" issue without making a problem. (Unless, of course, there is concern that plants, animals, viruses, minerals, and elements might also be saved, and therefore we must be SURE to say it is only humans! )
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I do so hope it's not "Because I happen to know that's the way God wants it". That's such a conversational dead-end.
Far be it from me to intentionally kill a conversation, Sine—a clunky faux pas indeed.
"Power" is one of those "boo" words that as soon as a man lays claim to it, that man has automatically sided with the oppressor. Whereas I keep trying to say that the exercise of power may or may not be oppressive. Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.
I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." *snip*
Well just do it, edit your data projector or Order of Service word processor files.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
From Gordon:
quote:
I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.
What "clarity about the shape of the relationship" are you trying to preserve? That God is our Creator? That both male and female are created in God's image? How does gender-inclusive language muddy the understanding of that relationship?
The reason the language in Gen 1:27 is plain in its intent is because the phrase "man" is immediately followed by the modifying phrase "male and female" - so it's an inclusive language construction.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.
But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".
I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for all for this discussion. It has truly caused me to re-think certain ideas pre-conceived ideas I had about "inclusive language" and its supporters. This Ship is a wonderful place for correcting ignorance.
God bless,
Ian.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.
Drat that Eve and her apple!
(I rather believe that's in Genesis too, and was much used at one time...but surely not in this day and age. Surely not.)
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Drat that Eve and her apple!
(I rather believe that's in Genesis too, and was much used at one time...but surely not in this day and age. Surely not.)
I'm not sure what you are questiong here, Sine—the reality of sin, perhaps (loosely defined as worshipping and serving the created things rather than the Creator, who is forever praised)? If so, that is terribly last-millennium of you I must say.
I think believing in Genesis requires us to believe in the reality of sin and the underlying relational metaphysics of sin. I don't think it requires us to believe in talking snakes.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
What "clarity about the shape of the relationship" are you trying to preserve? That God is our Creator? That both male and female are created in God's image?
This and more. There is an internal consistency between the way Gen 1 uses "man" to refer to "male and female"; the "helper" role given to the woman in Genesis 2 and the sort of intra-marital dynamics articulated by Paul in the New Testament.
quote:
The reason the language in Gen 1:27 is plain in its intent is because the phrase "man" is immediately followed by the modifying phrase "male and female" - so it's an inclusive language construction.
I wonder if this is a slightly risky admission. If it is plain in Genesis 1, then it is at least possible, given appropriate explanation, that it may be plain elsewehere—for example in church, where in some cases they say "for us men and our salvation" without apparent difficulty.
[ 07. June 2005, 02:57: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
How odd that we think it's important to recognize gender as significant when considering our humanity. I guess the design of language is at fault for perpetuating such petty nonsense.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
But Gordon, you still haven't explained exactly how gender-inclusive language threatens these relationships. For example, how does changing "The God of Abraham" to "The God of Abraham and Sarah" cause us to lose our concept of God as our creator, or of men and women as being created in God's image, or constitute an assault on Paul's theology of marriage? Is the idea that Sarah might be a important contributor to salvation history worthy of mention threatening in a way I'm failing to understand? Or am I REALLY missing something, and the OT God is somehow not Sarah's God?
You then say:
quote:
I wonder if this is a slightly risky admission. If it is plain in Genesis 1, then it is at least possible, given appropriate explanation, that it may be plain elsewehere—for example in church, where in some cases they say "for us men and our salvation" without apparent difficulty.
Risky? Risking what? In Genesis, the word "men" is explicitly modified to include "male and female" - that's the reason it clear and plain - so it is inclusive language that makes it clear and plain. Are you proposing a similar modification to the Creed?
Of course it's possible some people won't have a problem with it - it's obvious many people don't. I've already said I personally don't. The point is more the exclusion and disconnect it is causing people who do object to exclusive language. I imagine an "adequate" explanation of "what we really mean" isn't going to make that go away. Do you really think Ruth's issues with non-inclusive language will go away if you or someone else explains that "men" is a collective noun that includes her? Going out on a limb here, I suspect she grasps the grammatical concept. Your suggestion that a proper explanation is all that is required to make concerns about gender-excusive language go away is a bit unrealistic (the interpretation I'm choosing over "patronizing") - as the discussion on this thread makes pretty clear.
And you still haven't answered my question of why, if there is no Scriptural or doctrinal reason not to be inclusive with particular language, we shouldn't do so when it is causing people to struggle and stumble. If it costs us nothing in terms of sacrificing truth, but only something in terms of personal comfort level, give me a reason not to do it that outweighs helping people who find the language a stumbling block, even after it has been "properly explained."
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
RuthW: Unlike your examples of "dear", "honey" and "sweetie" (which are not examples of gender exclusive language, but examples of the language of endearment inappropriately applied), your example of "for us men and for our salvation" is actually an example where a person's feeling offended is not in and of itself sufficient reason to change the language.
We're not talking about a person's feeling; we're talking about a lot of people's feeling. It seems you are not prepared to insult people one at a time, but you are prepared to insult a fair number of women all at once.
quote:
If it was sufficient, then I could argue that I would be offended by the language being changed, and that would be sufficient to retain traditional usage. I think you'd agree that me being offended in such a situation would not be enough to override the need for change. So 'being offended' is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned. At this point I agree with John Cleese: "You do not have the right not to be offended".
If the women in your congregation are not offended, there is no reason to change. If a number of them were, would you reconsider your position?
As for your arguments about power, it is of course entirely appropriate for parents to exercise power over their children; it would be wrong of them not to. The exercise of power is as you say not automatically oppressive. But men's traditional ability to exercise power over women was wrong because it was inappropriate; it was based on wrong-headed ideas about women.
Posted by Rusty John (# 9305) on
:
On the particular language of the creed:
Now, I admit I'm new to all this, but the noun I fill in when I hear "for us and for our salvation" is not "men" or even "humans" but "sinners"—we who need saving. It seems like that's a more natural way to take it than than hearing it and thinking "us" refers to those who are present or those belonging to the particular church in question—does anyone really do that?
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty John:
the noun I fill in when I hear "for us and for our salvation" is not "men" or even "humans" but "sinners"—we who need saving. It seems like that's a more natural way to take it than than hearing it and thinking "us" refers to those who are present or those belonging to the particular church in question—does anyone really do that?
I don't think it would be difficult at all to find someone who believed that God came to save only certain people, and therefore that "for us and for our salvation" means only Christians, or only a particular type of Christian, or only people of a certain ethnicity.
I know there are people who believe that God did not come to save blacks. I know there are people who believe that God came to save only "the elect." I know that there are people who hope that God did not come to save particular evil people (Hitler, say, or Stalin, or even their ex-spouse).
Given that these attitudes exist, I think "for us and for our salvation" is not only a faulty translation (there is a noun in the Greek specifying that it's not just us, but us humans-not-animals), but a dangerous one as well.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty John:
the noun I fill in when I hear "for us and for our salvation" is not "men" or even "humans" but "sinners"—we who need saving. It seems like that's a more natural way to take it than than hearing it and thinking "us" refers to those who are present or those belonging to the particular church in question—does anyone really do that?
I don't think it would be difficult at all to find someone who believed that God came to save only certain people, and therefore that "for us and for our salvation" means only Christians, or only a particular type of Christian, or only people of a certain ethnicity.
Sounds to me like good reason for them to be made to say something inclusive like "for us people and for our salvation" or "for all people," though I especially like Rusty John's suggestion of "us sinners." Reminds me of the Jesus prayer.
[fixed code]
[ 07. June 2005, 16:52: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
(From Hooker's Trick) Ariel said no one goes to church anymore because the churches are patriarchal (and we know this because we say "goodwill toward men").
If you're going to quote me please do it accurately. I said it was one reason why people don't go to church any more. Because it comes across as an overwhelmingly male religion with God the Father, God the Son, a genderless Holy Spirit (who used in previous centuries to be portrayed as male) and rather a lot of male priests, bishops, etc. There are times when I just think, "Well, it's intended for men, it's not really that relevant to me or something I can particularly relate to." The only strong visible female influence in it is the Virgin Mary, either a mother or a maiden, which doesn't leave that much room for women to identify or relate to her either. This is why I think that, as it stands, Catholicism is right to have a male priesthood. It's a male Trinity, if it was a female Trinity I'd want a female priesthood.
(Priesthood. Priestesshood? Many words have a "female" ending tacked on. Not many are female in themselves. Many girls' names are originally male names with a female ending. Over and over again we get the message that the male is the default, the definitive. That you as a woman will never be anything but second best.)
Ruth - one thing I hated for years was the habit which is so prevalent in Britain of calling women "love" and "darling" or some similar endearment - when the person doesn't know you and is maybe just handing your your change in a shop or a bus ticket or something. I mentioned to female friends how much I disliked this but reactions tended to be "I think it's nice."
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
I've just woken up, so will reread this thread and reply in more detail later. But for now there are two points I want to pick up on.
quote:
Gordon Cheng: "Power" is one of those "boo" words that as soon as a man lays claim to it, that man has automatically sided with the oppressor. Whereas I keep trying to say that the exercise of power may or may not be oppressive. Generally speaking, it is oppressive in male-female relationships; which I argue is because of sin rather than because of the exercise of power.
You're right. The exercise of power isn't always oppressive. What is oppresive is the default assumption that a man will exercise power over a woman, simply because of his gender, regardless of which of them is most fit at that moment to lead. That, it seems to me, is a good working definition of patriarchy: a society in which the default leader is male, regardless of ability.
I find it very interesting that, in defending patriarchy, you turn to the model of parent and child. It's really only in the past 100 years that women have been viewed as rational adults in their own right, rather than child-like and in need of protection. If you're trying to argue that the exercise of power can be benevolent or right, then I would agree. But if that were normal in male/female partnerships, then one would expect the woman to be exercising the power half of the time.
Societally, I don't see that happening.
So I do think patriarchy is oppressive. It may be benevolent, but it's still oppressive. That, by the way, is very different from argueing that all men are oppressors, which I do not believe at all.
quote:
Hookers Trick: The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."
Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.
Language, it seems to me, isn't straightforward. It can convey a clear 'top' meaning, but has layers of sub-meanings that may never be consciously articulated. English, I understand from those who are multi-lingual, is particularly slippery that way. That is why poetry works, and liturgy is a form of poetry, in that it ham-fistedly uses the clumsy tools of language to attempt to explain something our brains are incapable of fully understanding.
So on one level you're right: of course noone in church is saying that women aren't saved. That's the top meaning if you like. But all the other 'layers' of meaning are saying something different. The emotional resonance of "for us men", for me, is that it doesn't include me. That may be a generational thing, because never in my lifetime has men routinely included women. If it were just one example then it wouldn't matter, but that message repeatedly reinforced and is backed up by centuries of church teaching. The church has taught that women have second-rate souls and aren't as spiritually advanced as men. Even now, some churches believe that women are incapable of teaching or preaching.
I've posted all this already. I've posted that I find "for us men" excluding, inspite of knowing its surface meaning. That on an emotional level it doesn't apply to me. That the drip-drip-drip of those words and others like them impedes my relationship with God. I assume you've read that. Yet you dismiss what I've said as the words of a moron.
Were I in your church I'd be saying "for us and for our salvation". Would I talk to you about it? Probably not. What would be the point - I'm not going to change your mind. Would I keep going? Well, that depends. Convenience, family needs, or liking the rest of the liturgy or the church community could well keep me there, but I would still feel resentful.
For now, though, I don't go to church. There are lots of reasons behind that, but gendered language is certainly one of them.
So I guess what it comes down to is this: is the attatchment to a now outdated and potentially misleading form of words sufficiently strong for them to be worth hanging onto, knowing that some will be offended? Is that form of words more important than knowing that they will impede some people's relationship with God?
Peronel.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
As the brain wakes up, another thought...
Rereading this, it appears those who defend non-inclusive language are argueing two things. Firstly that "men" does include women, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. And secondly, that changing to inclusive language risks damaging gospel truths.
You can't have it both ways. Either "for us men and women and our salvation" means the same as "for us men and for our salvation", or it does not.
If the meaning is fundamentally the same, then the only problem with inclusive language is aesthetic. Indeed, as the meaning of language evolves and changes, traditional forms are at risk of drifting away from their original intended meaning. This has already happened with the BCP, where to "minister indifferently"* no longer means what it did when written.
If the two do mean different things, then perhaps those detractors who dismiss the church as a historic bastion of male oppressors are right.
Peronel
*working from memory and don't have a bcp handy - still in bed. It may be to judge indifferently. Either way, indifferently used to mean without bias, and now conveys something very different.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.
But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".
I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.
I think it’s a pretty poor point.
The argument seems to be, “We can assume that people can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘men’ includes women, but we can’t assume that they can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘us’ doesn’t mean only white people (or whatever group we identify with”. It makes no sense to assume people are smart or stupid, just to benefit our own position.
If we are working on the basis that people will read meaning into the text (and there is little alternative) then we should use the most appropriate text in the first place. The most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Given that these attitudes exist, I think "for us and for our salvation" is not only a faulty translation (there is a noun in the Greek specifying that it's not just us, but us humans-not-animals), but a dangerous one as well.
Given that sexist attitudes exist, it would seem to me more dangerous to have a faulty translation that uses "men" where women should be included.
[Aside]Surely all creation is saved, not just humans?[/Aside]
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."
Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.
Another rather dodgy argument, it seems to me. Just because the correct interpretation can be made from a text doesn't mean that the text is correctly written.
Suppose a female lawyer came across a sentence something like, "If a lawyer suspects a conflict of interests may occur between two of his clients, then he should cease to act for one or other of the clients.”
That female lawyer can probably work out that “his” and “he” in the sentence apply to her, but that doesn’t mean the sentence isn’t badly written, with the sexist assumption that lawyers are always male.
To give another example, outside the field of gender…
quote:
You can probably imply my meaning from this sentence. However, the fact that you can work out the meaning doesn’t change the fact that I have used “imply” when I should have used “infer”. That the correct meaning can be deduced doesn’t mean that the text is right.
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Ruth - one thing I hated for years was the habit which is so prevalent in Britain of calling women "love" and "darling" or some similar endearment - when the person doesn't know you and is maybe just handing your your change in a shop or a bus ticket or something. I mentioned to female friends how much I disliked this but reactions tended to be "I think it's nice."
[tangent]
I can't speak for the rest of the country - but in West Yorkshire the opposite sex was called "love" by male and female alike.
One fond memory is of my former firm's national managing partner's reaction at being called "love" on the platform at Leeds station by one of the female station staff. He was so taken aback that he forgot what he was complaining about.
Once I twigged that it was gender inclusive in an odd way, I did find it endearing.
[/tangent]
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
In the West Country I often get called "my lover" by women in shops, pubs etc. I didn't realise this largesse extended to Yorkshire as well.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
I think that the creed could be much simplified by replacing "for us men and for our salvation" by "for us and for our salvation." Because, generally, at least where I have gone to church only human beings have been saying the creed.
But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".
I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.
I think it?s a pretty poor point.
The argument seems to be, ?We can assume that people can read meaning into the text to work out that ?men? includes women, but we can?t assume that they can read meaning into the text to work out that ?us? doesn?t mean only white people (or whatever group we identify with?. It makes no sense to assume people are smart or stupid, just to benefit our own position.
If we are working on the basis that people will read meaning into the text (and there is little alternative) then we should use the most appropriate text in the first place. The most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Given that these attitudes exist, I think "for us and for our salvation" is not only a faulty translation (there is a noun in the Greek specifying that it's not just us, but us humans-not-animals), but a dangerous one as well.
Given that sexist attitudes exist, it would seem to me more dangerous to have a faulty translation that uses "men" where women should be included.
[Aside]Surely all creation is saved, not just humans?[/Aside]
The point, Josephine, Mousethief and I (though no-one seems to have noticed my first post on this point) have been making is not insisting on the use of 'men' but saying that merely omitting it is at least as bad as using 'men'. We have suggested a more accurate modern alternative (humans). The point about all creation being saved is not the point being made in the greek at this point (I did illustrate the Greek way back on page 1, but I'm running horribly late already).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
The ladies in my parish are obviously morons. We say "for us men and for our salvation."
Now, are the ladies morons, or do you think that they really believe that they are not saved? I've always thought La Trick was very clever, but now I see she is either 1. deluded, 2. oppressed, or 3. a moron. Or maybe all three!
What I think is richest about this argument is that every single person who claims that "men" is exclusive also knows full well that "men" is meant to be inclusive. Clearly it's not a case of being confused, it's a case of not liking the word.
Another rather dodgy argument, it seems to me. Just because the correct interpretation can be made from a text doesn't mean that the text is correctly written.
Suppose a female lawyer came across a sentence something like, "If a lawyer suspects a conflict of interests may occur between two of his clients, then he should cease to act for one or other of the clients.?
That female lawyer can probably work out that ?his? and ?he? in the sentence apply to her, but that doesn?t mean the sentence isn?t badly written, with the sexist assumption that lawyers are always male.
No. That is not the assumption behind `he' and `his' in that sentence, the reason for the use of he/his is that the `male embraces the female'. I agree one might infer from it that lawyers are all male, but I would argue that is not what the writer was (necessarily) implying!
Carys
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?
I'd rather be outside of a group that considers gender a classification for inclusion or exclusion. I have the ability to decide that sort of asinine, old-fashioned devisiveness has no bearing what-so-ever on my life.
If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But, as Mousethief [I think...my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today], "us" -- rather than "us humans" -- tends to narrow the focus to "us gathered here today", "our little group of Christendom".
I hadn't considered this before until Mousethief brought it up, and I tend to think, ignorant on liturgics lay person though I may be, it's quite a good point.
I think it’s a pretty poor point.
The argument seems to be, “We can assume that people can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘men’ includes women, but we can’t assume that they can read meaning into the text to work out that ‘us’ doesn’t mean only white people (or whatever group we identify with”. It makes no sense to assume people are smart or stupid, just to benefit our own position.
If we are working on the basis that people will read meaning into the text (and there is little alternative) then we should use the most appropriate text in the first place. The most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative.
Sorry, I mustn't've been clear.
What I was getting at is that the lack of some form of descriptor of people could cause problems as well.
I agree with you entirely that the "most likely mis-reading of the text in question is surely that male is normative."
Regards & God bless,
Ian.
[ 07. June 2005, 07:19: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
[And sorry Carys for not attributing it to you...I got rather confused as to who said what: I should've looked back! ]
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Gordon Cheng wrote:
quote:
I would suggest that it is at least possible for those who oppose the use of inclusive language to be doing so because they wish to maintain a clarity about the shape of those relationships; a clarity first suggested in Genesis 1:26-7 and expounded elsewhere in Scripture.
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Here, at least, it is plain that so-called exclusive language implies no inequality between male and female.
Gordon - do you read Hebrew? Gen. 1:26 uses the word 'adam, which we mistakenly often think means a male because it has become an English male name, but in fact means "human being" in Hebrew - if you want to say 'man' (i.e. male) in Hebrew you use 'ish. Thus Gen 1:26 in Hebrew is inclusive language - as the next verse makes clear. To use an English translation to support allegedly generic use of 'man' to mean 'human' is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew. Wayne Grudem makes the same mistake in his Systematic Theology (he appears to know no Hebrew either). Indeed he argues there that using 'man' to mean 'human' is God's way and we should stick to it - I am not sure you are quite saying that. However, he is - and it's nice to know that God speaks English.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
I still think if you try and think of a white congregation saying
"For us whites and for our salvation"
you might get an understanding of how some women feel about exclusive language.
Or, if that is too difficult, try imagining yourself (if white) going into a black (or Asian) church and hearing
"For us blacks and for our salvation"
I am not trying to be funny, or derail all the very academic arguments that have, very interestingly, been put here. I am just trying to get some of you to understand what it feels like to be regarded, even if unconsciously, as a second class Christian, as women have been historically regarded for centuries. And still are, in some churches.
Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I still think if you try and think of a white congregation saying
"For us whites and for our salvation"
you might get an understanding of how some women feel about exclusive language.
Or, if that is too difficult, try imagining yourself (if white) going into a black (or Asian) church and hearing
"For us blacks and for our salvation"
I am not trying to be funny, or derail all the very academic arguments that have, very interestingly, been put here. I am just trying to get some of you to understand what it feels like to be regarded, even if unconsciously, as a second class Christian, as women have been historically regarded for centuries. And still are, in some churches.
It is not quite a direct and fair comparison is it? The usage of "white" and "black" has always been exclusive - while the usage of "man" has been inclusive. I have had a good old chat with some of the older ladies I know about this (believe me I have plenty in my church) - and most of them detest the move to inclusive language. One of them said to me - "man" and "men" only became exclusive when the feminists told us this was so, until then we understood the inclusive nature of these terms. I guess that is a cause issue though and not one of effect which you are talking about.
[ 07. June 2005, 09:04: Message edited by: Goodric ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?
If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.
So those of us who have articulated that we find this language unhelpful are either making it up, or are looking for reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image? Uhhh, thanks.
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
"The male embraces the female" in language seems to be a common argument on this thread...
This was also the argument used by a former research assistant of mine: first language not English, but a language that has no (natural) gender, very very intelligent woman with extremely good English and a need to be right, which was almost always borne out in her speech and actions. But occasionally not.
One day she told us: "Elena thinks we should carry on with the protocol as we've been doing. I spoke to him yesterday on the telephone".
Now, if you are an English speaker, and someone tells you this verbally, you come out of it very baffled. Especially if you have met Elena and admired her elegant dresses. Who precisely did she speak to on the telephone? Perhaps it was the driver who was sitting outside and who had no telephone, but who had been mentioned in the previous sentence?
But the assistant's argument was "the male pronoun implies the female pronoun". Ours was "we have no idea what you are talking about when you do that; so it can't be correct". Her riposte was to show us where it says in the dictionary that the male pronoun implies the female pronoun.
Were we wrong to be confused? Am I wrong to be confused when I hear "brothers" in church and wonder why I'm not allowed to do whatever it is we're singing about?
(Incidentally our parish is fairly high church, has liberal theology, uses inclusive language for the most part, and is very popular.)
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
I have had a good old chat with some of the older ladies I know about this (believe me I have plenty in my church) - and most of them detest the move to inclusive language. One of them said to me - "man" and "men" only became exclusive when the feminists told us this was so, until then we understood the inclusive nature of these terms.
This may well be the case. However, whatever the reason behind it, language has evolved. I've grown up with "man" and "men" referring almost exclusively to the half of the species with boy-bits. That's the problem, I think: language has shifted so this phrase and those like it have ended up being at best archaic and at worst exclusive or misleading. As is, you're fine ministering to old ladies, but a percentage of women my age and younger will find exclusive language offputting. That problem is only going to get worse as the pre-inclusive language generation die off.
That evolution of language is why I wouldn't advocate updating beloved hymns such as "dear lord and father of mankind" (although I would sympathise with those who do). I know they're old, and am able to hear them as reflecting the language they were written in. It is unfortunate, however, when today's church language continues to use "men" for "men and women", because today it simply doesn't mean that.
As an example of the way in which today's church excludes women, see this. Here's an illustrative quote:
quote:
Definitely the emphasis on men; men as leaders, men as the head of their family, men as everything. Women weren't so much second-class citizens as not even mentioned.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the earlier article, which clearly describes women being assigned different (and inferior) roles from men, purely on the basis of their gender. It's this clear discrimination which makes some of us twitchy about discriminatory language, whether or not its conscious intention is to exclude.
Peronel.
[ 07. June 2005, 09:21: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
Goodric, I think that the key phrase in your posting was "older ladies".
With regards to attitudes to inclusive language, it seems to me that there are definite differences based upon age.
a) The vast majority of people aged 60+ will (regardless of their gender) still find it puzzling that anyone could get so worked up about "men" meaning "humanity". It is what they grew up with and they understand it. Many of such people appreciate that it does cause offence to other, younger, people and so don't mind inclusive language as long as it isn't taken to extremes
b) Most of people aged 30-55 will be caught in the transition between "non-inclusive" and "inclusive" patterns of speaking. They started life with the same assumptions as the older generation, but have lived through the feminist turmoils and controversies. Some will be virulently against inclusive language, mainly because they see it as a symptom of a feminism that they find threatening and damaging to the Church. Most (IMO) will have made a conscious adjustment to inclusive language. They will be in agreement that it is the right way to go, but it will be by no means "natural" for them.
c) The majority of those under 30 will (on the whole) be completely unable to see what all the fuss is about, as they take inclusive language for granted. Such people will find non-inclusive language slightly shocking and even offensive. And the younger you go, the more offended they will be. My teenage kids (male and female) are astonished that "man" could ever legitimately mean "humanity".
Language has changed before our very eyes. We can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. Bewailing the fact that we can no longer safely use the word "man" to indicate male and female is like bewailing the fact that "gay" now has a very different normal meaning to what it had 30 years ago. We may grieve for what has passed, but in reality we have to adjust to the way things are now. That's what happens with a living, changing language. And the truth is that english has always (ALWAYS) been a changing organism. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austin, Dickins - they are all increasingly difficult for our younger generations to read and appreciate simply because of the way the language has changed and is still changing.
Whether you think feminism is good or a particularly nasty trick of Beelzebub, the fact remains that the inclusive argument has won the day. Churches that don't adjust to this reality are going to find that they are increasingly seen by the younger generations as out of date, out of touch and woefully offensive.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The point, Josephine, Mousethief and I (though no-one seems to have noticed my first post on this point) have been making is not insisting on the use of 'men' but saying that merely omitting it is at least as bad as using 'men'. We have suggested a more accurate modern alternative (humans). The point about all creation being saved is not the point being made in the greek at this point (I did illustrate the Greek way back on page 1, but I'm running horribly late already).
My apologies for overlooking your post - I've been dipping in and out of this thread rather.
I would argue that leaving out "men" is less bad, as less likely to carry unhelpfully exclusive associations, but it's a matter of opinion. "Human" is, I agree, better, although possibly not pretty.
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
No. That is not the assumption behind `he' and `his' in that sentence, the reason for the use of he/his is that the `male embraces the female'. I agree one might infer from it that lawyers are all male, but I would argue that is not what the writer was (necessarily) implying!
Not necessarily what the writing intended to imply, I agree - but we can't be sure (the writer might not have been aware of his or her own assumptions behind the statement).
However, the fact remains that, although we can read the text to ignore the ambiguity over intention, it would have been better had it been written in such a was as to avoid the ambiguity in the first place.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Having returned from being twelfth man* in a cricket match, there are various points to which I want to respond.
Firstly, feminine forms of job titles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
A woman I know insisted that she was the chairman of the body she chaired, but I was not willing to call her that. To me she is a chairwoman.
What gives you the right to call her something she doesn't want to be called?
It's just the same as hymns. Titles and names put words into other people's mouths. How I hate the margarine that calls itself 'I can't believe it's not butter.' I can't refer to it like that without advertising it to myself!
I wouldn't refer to a woman as a chairman any more than I would call a black person a darkie, whatever they told me they preferred.
What about calling a woman a batswoman even when she's asked to be called a batsman?
The point is that by refusing to do as she asked, you are imposing your ideas upon her. I think this is a large part of what frustrates me about the inclusive language debate. Being told that, as a woman, I ought to feel excluded by terms such as 'mankind' and man used in the sense of `not animal' (not in the `not female' sense) when I have chosen not to be excluded by them is diminishing that choice. Now, I will admit that because of my history, which has not included this sort of language being used to exclude women in the way in which Seeker963 has mentioned on this thread, I probably find making this choice easier than many women, but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to decide for myself. For me, choosing to be excluded from generic `man' or `mankind' would be more of a problem than being included in it. It seems in fact to be saying that there is a greater difference between male and female than I see there as being.
quote:
The term manageress is interesting, because it ought to parallel manager, but in practice is only used of women who run canteens or shops. A female bank manager (now that we have them) would never be called a manageress.
I think this reflects the fact that when women first took on managing things, it tended to be shops etc and at that stage there was a feeling that `manager' was male and therefore calling a woman who did that job a `manager' would not be acknowledging that she was female. I think actually, I have heard it used in relation to banks. Now however, the -er suffice is regarded as gender neutral and the -ess suffice as diminuitive and so using a different term for a woman implies that there is something less good about them. For me, the CofE's creation of the role of `deaconess' which was not just a woman in deacon's orders has a lot to do with the way I react to the -ess ending, although I've less problem with it now than I did as a teenager. The odd thing is that at the same time as -er has been defined as gender-neutral, -man has been seen as too masculine so women cannot be chairmen but only chairwomen. This switch strikes me as quite odd and arguably inconsistent although I think I can understand why it has worked like that. The example of `batsman' is a key one in this, because that is one where, because of the tendency for women's sports to be less visible than men's, the claim to equality in using the same term as the men is much stronger than the claim not to be excluded and presumed to be male.
quote:
((Incidentally, I originally wrote about a woman bank manager. This is a familiar construction: woman minister, woman doctor, but is never used the other way round. You never hear of a man minister, or men doctors. It bothers me. Is the claim that there are female ministers too radical, because it suggests that minister might be female, rather than just claiming that women can be (masculine stand in) ministers?))
This bugs me too. It is an odd construction and I try to use female because that's an adjective whereas as woman is a noun being used as an adjective!
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I still think if you try and think of a white congregation saying
"For us whites and for our salvation"
you might get an understanding of how some women feel about exclusive language.
Or, if that is too difficult, try imagining yourself (if white) going into a black (or Asian) church and hearing
"For us blacks and for our salvation"
I am not trying to be funny, or derail all the very academic arguments that have, very interestingly, been put here. I am just trying to get some of you to understand what it feels like to be regarded, even if unconsciously, as a second class Christian, as women have been historically regarded for centuries. And still are, in some churches.
It is not quite a direct and fair comparison is it? The usage of "white" and "black" has always been exclusive - while the usage of "man" has been inclusive. I have had a good old chat with some of the older ladies I know about this (believe me I have plenty in my church) - and most of them detest the move to inclusive language. One of them said to me - "man" and "men" only became exclusive when the feminists told us this was so, until then we understood the inclusive nature of these terms. I guess that is a cause issue though and not one of effect which you are talking about.
And the point that a number of us have been making on here is that by merely omitting the `men' you are making it easier for whites to mean `us whites' subconsciously. Changing a mistranslation (or at least something which has become a mistranslation) for a worse mistranslation is not the way forward. I think someone said they didn't think this misreading that likely, but talking about it with friends a couple of terms ago, one of them admitted that she probably had taken `us' (rather than `us men') to mean `those saying this' rather than the powerful `us, the human race'.
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
[And sorry Carys for not attributing it to you...I got rather confused as to who said what: I should've looked back! ]
That's ok. I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
As the brain wakes up, another thought...
Rereading this, it appears those who defend non-inclusive language are arguing two things. Firstly that "men" does include women, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. And secondly, that changing to inclusive language risks damaging gospel truths.
You can't have it both ways. Either "for us men and women and our salvation" means the same as "for us men and for our salvation", or it does not.
If the meaning is fundamentally the same, then the only problem with inclusive language is aesthetic. Indeed, as the meaning of language evolves and changes, traditional forms are at risk of drifting away from their original intended meaning. This has already happened with the BCP, where to "minister indifferently"* no longer means what it did when written.
If the two do mean different things, then perhaps those detractors who dismiss the church as a historic bastion of male oppressors are right.
Peronel
*working from memory and don't have a bcp handy - still in bed. It may be to judge indifferently. Either way, indifferently used to mean without bias, and now conveys something very different.
In the case of `us men and our salvation', no-one (except possibly HT)* has been arguing for the absolute retention of `men' but we (Josephine, Mousethief, Ian Climacus and I) have been arguing against the dropping of the word entirely because that just leaves us with a different problem (as I've already explained in this post and at least 2 previous ones). We have suggested a way of translating it which is more faithful to the original Greek of ημας τoυς ανθρoπoυς.
Carys (who really must go and do some work!)
*I don't think what he has posted is sufficient for me to say what he thinks on this point. His point has been that, in the context of a trad language service at least, women at his church cope with accepting that `us men' means `us human beings'. That is certainly what I do at Church. I do not think he has talked about what to do in a modern language situation.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
"The male embraces the female" in language seems to be a common argument on this thread...
This was also the argument used by a former research assistant of mine: first language not English, but a language that has no (natural) gender, very very intelligent woman with extremely good English and a need to be right, which was almost always borne out in her speech and actions. But occasionally not.
One day she told us: "Elena thinks we should carry on with the protocol as we've been doing. I spoke to him yesterday on the telephone".
Now, if you are an English speaker, and someone tells you this verbally, you come out of it very baffled. Especially if you have met Elena and admired her elegant dresses. Who precisely did she speak to on the telephone? Perhaps it was the driver who was sitting outside and who had no telephone, but who had been mentioned in the previous sentence?
But the assistant's argument was "the male pronoun implies the female pronoun". Ours was "we have no idea what you are talking about when you do that; so it can't be correct". Her riposte was to show us where it says in the dictionary that the male pronoun implies the female pronoun.
Were we wrong to be confused? Am I wrong to be confused when I hear "brothers" in church and wonder why I'm not allowed to do whatever it is we're singing about?
(Incidentally our parish is fairly high church, has liberal theology, uses inclusive language for the most part, and is very popular.)
The issues of `brothers' and the example of the non-first-language English speaker are different. In the case of the non-first-language speaker, she was wrong in that whilst generically the masculine can include the feminine, non-generically it doesn't so if one has referred to a specific person, one uses the pronoun which is correct for that person. In my previous post (which I cross posted with various), I wrote at one point `What about calling a woman a batswoman even when they've' but then realised that was silly. I'm not entirely sure whether the reason I typed `they' was because I was using it as a gender-neutral singular form or because I was thinking of a group of women even though I'd typed `a woman'. If it was the latter, I was confused and so `she' was the non-confused approach. If it was the former, well, there was no need for a generic gender-neutral pronoun here because `a woman' is, by definition female!
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
No. That is not the assumption behind `he' and `his' in that sentence, the reason for the use of he/his is that the `male embraces the female'. I agree one might infer from it that lawyers are all male, but I would argue that is not what the writer was (necessarily) implying!
Not necessarily what the writing intended to imply, I agree - but we can't be sure (the writer might not have been aware of his or her own assumptions behind the statement).
However, the fact remains that, although we can read the text to ignore the ambiguity over intention, it would have been better had it been written in such a was as to avoid the ambiguity in the first place.
Agreed. Saying `lawyers', `they' and `their' avoids the problem nicely. The trouble is that there are cases where the plural is clunky (though I think I'm happy with the use of the plural in a singular sense in those cases, but that can be ambiguous). However, I would tend towards a charitable reading of a sentence where `he', `his' has been used generically, i.e. the writer was not deliberately excluding me. That is probably part of my logic for not changing hymns where the author is dead. People have pointed out that for the older generation man, men is not a problem and so that is a reasonable previous generations too. If the author is alive then, I'm quite happy for them to change their own words. But, I dislike imposing our modern assumptions on those who have gone before.
Carys
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Posted by Oscar the G
quote:
Goodric, I think that the key phrase in your posting was "older ladies".
With regards to attitudes to inclusive language, it seems to me that there are definite differences based upon age.
a) The vast majority of people aged 60+ will (regardless of their gender) still find it puzzling that anyone could get so worked up about "men" meaning "humanity". It is what they grew up with and they understand it. Many of such people appreciate that it does cause offence to other, younger, people and so don't mind inclusive language as long as it isn't taken to extremes
I AM an older lady
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
The example of `batsman' is a key one in this, because that is one where, because of the tendency for women's sports to be less visible than men's, the claim to equality in using the same term as the men is much stronger than the claim not to be excluded and presumed to be male.
I think this is really interesting, because it illustrates nicely that words are potent, and carry meanings beyond what may be intended. So when considering gendered language it's important, I think, to weigh up each case on its own merits rather than to just arbitarily exclude the word "man" from everything.
Others will differ, but personally I have little problem with words like "batsman" or "postman". I'm trying to weigh up why, and I think it's because the "bat" or "post" bit outweighs the "man". After all, the important thing about a batsman is that they wield a bat*, not that they're a man.
Either way, I would tend to call people what they want to be called, even if it isn't what I would want to be called in that situation.
quote:
In the case of `us men and our salvation', no-one (except possibly HT)* has been arguing for the absolute retention of `men' but we (Josephine, Mousethief, Ian Climacus and I) have been arguing against the dropping of the word entirely because that just leaves us with a different problem (as I've already explained in this post and at least 2 previous ones). We have suggested a way of translating it which is more faithful to the original Greek of ημας τoυς ανθρoπoυς.
I guess this is directed at me. I think you may have misunderstood what I said. My point is that one of the problems I have with "us men and our salvation" is that, as language has shifted, it is no longer accurate. The meaning of the translation has evolved away from the original text.
So I would absolutely advocate a return to more accurate wording. I agree that "us and our salvation" may not be the best translation (although personally I think it is much less open to misinterpretation than "us men...") for all the reasons you, Mousethief and others have given. Indeed, the example I gave in the bit you quoted was "for us men and women...". That may not be the best option, either - it's certainly somewhat clumsy.
But my point remains: if "us men and our salvation" really is meant to include men and women then what - other than the aesthetic - is the problem with updating the translation to reflect that.
quote:
I dislike imposing our modern assumptions on those who have gone before.
I agree. I equally dislike justifying the modern use of discriminatory language by reference to outdates linguistic and social norms. In the MW article I linked to women were excluded from what, one assumes, was extemporary prayer. That, it seems to me, is only justifiable if - like Gordon Cheng - you really don't believe that men and women should share equal power.
Peronel.
*I know nothing about cricket, so may be wrong on this!
[ 07. June 2005, 10:07: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Goodric (# 8001) on
:
Just to make a change from long posts (phew ) I'd like to say Oscar and Peronel - good points - well made and taken. And Nicodemia - how refreshing to hear such expressions from the "older generation" .
[ 07. June 2005, 10:07: Message edited by: Goodric ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And I hold to my point about the current teenage generation - the young women are not going to accept the use of "men" for themselves as they grow up.
I imagine not. But then I imagiend the same thing about my own generation of teenagers, and this thread is evidence that it didn't entirely happen.
I have to confess to privately omitting the word "men" from "for us men" since we used the Series 3 communion book in the Church of England, back in the 1970s. I was a little disappointed that it was retained in the ASB we used from about 1981 onwards, but I tended to avoid saying it myself. I started attending the church I am still at in 1990, and as the 90s went on the word dropped out of use as people individually stopped saying it (most notably the vicar) so you had an audible out-of-synch glitch in the Creed. Though nothing like the one we get in the Lord's Prayer, where whatever the printed version, people say the one they expect to have been printed. But then God can hear our prayers whether or not we say them in time to the beat.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Saying `lawyers', `they' and `their' avoids the problem nicely. The trouble is that there are cases where the plural is clunky (though I think I'm happy with the use of the plural in a singular sense in those cases, but that can be ambiguous). However, I would tend towards a charitable reading of a sentence where `he', `his' has been used generically, i.e. the writer was not deliberately excluding me. That is probably part of my logic for not changing hymns where the author is dead. People have pointed out that for the older generation man, men is not a problem and so that is a reasonable previous generations too. If the author is alive then, I'm quite happy for them to change their own words. But, I dislike imposing our modern assumptions on those who have gone before.
I agree about the use of "they" and "their" - in general I find them helpful ways of avoiding awkward "hers/his" combinations, and similar.
As for changing hymns, what about SteveTom's point about there being a number of versons of well-known hymns? Do we go back to singing "Hark how all the welkin rings" rather than impose modern words like "Hark! The herald angel sings"?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Carys said: quote:
What about calling a woman a batswoman even when she's asked to be called a batsman?
This is a difficult example, and probably therefore important. On the general point I think there are times when what someone wants to be called and what others wish to call them conflict. It can only be resolved by negotiation. I would not address someone with a KBE as 'Sir.' Our names and titles belong to others as well as us.
Batsman is interesting because it's one of those examples where 'man' is used more collectively. The most abstract and collective examples I can think of are things like manpower and man hours, and manning the pumps. The man in manpower doesn't refer to anyone in particular. The man in batsman refers to a numbered person in a list of eleven. It's like infantryman or chessmen (gaps, hyphens or single words? Optional, I'd say). They are resources at a captain's disposal. The word is fairly neutral. The batsman may be rich, poor, young or old, we don't care, but he's the next up. The batsman may in fact be a woman. Irrelevant.
However, though the intention is to use the word inclusively, and it may be meant and understood inclusively, and it is certainly desirable to have an inclusive term, it can't be taken in isolation. It's always man, and man often means a male, and makes us expect a male.
The best that can be said for 'man' is that it means 'a person as usually represented by a male.' It means 'someone' but it ushers a male someone forwards to be our mental image. There are jokes that rely on this. Two Germans walking across a bridge: one is the father of the other one's son. How come? We hear German and think men. In fact many of us hear New Yorker and think man, expect surgeons, firefighters and even pedestrians and writers to be men. It is the default sex in language and until recently, the default sex in much of society.
Even then it wouldn't matter so very much except that in church we may also exclude women from our leadership. If we wish to say that we regard women as equal to men and that their underrepresentation in ministry is just a regrettable historical legacy, then we have got to be scrupulously careful about our language. If we don't, then the words of the hymns are not only inaccurate or discourteous but part of our oppressive patriarchy.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Gordon - do you read Hebrew? Gen. 1:26 uses the word 'adam, which we mistakenly often think means a male because it has become an English male name, but in fact means "human being" in Hebrew - if you want to say 'man' (i.e. male) in Hebrew you use 'ish.
Hi Charles,
My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.
I do take the points that many have made about some finding the use of non-inclusive language genuinely offensive. However I would also suggest that at this stage of the discussion that I've clarified my reasons sufficiently that any offence taken is being taken for the 'right' reason, if I can put it in that rather awkward way. That is, you now know that my language reflects a particular sort of conservative theology, a theology (some of) you find offensive. You also know that I don't use the language in order to offend, but in order to more accurately reflect what I actually think.
That said, I suspect we are close to an impasse; an impasse that wouldn't be resolved unless we were able to dig deeper and discuss the merits and demerits of the underlying theological positions. Which is a Dead Horse, but if invited I am happy to continue that particular conversation in the relevant DH thread (Headship).
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.
Oh, sorry, and also during and after Eve's creation: Gen 2:20, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24 etc.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
From Gordon: quote:
My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.
In these texts, you assume that 'adam is male. The text itself does not say that. Famously, Phyllis Trible argues that 'adam is androgynous and that at the creation of Eve (and only then) does gender diffeentiation enter the scene. This is a plausible interpretation of Gen 1 and 2, though cannot be proved beyond doubt - but then taking 'adam to mean male is in the same category.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
From Gordon: quote:
My knowledge of Hebrew is below abysmal. However I know enough to recognise that 'adam is used of the man alone (before Eve's creation) in Gen 2:5,7, 8, 15, 18, 19 and 20.
In these texts, you assume that 'adam is male. The text itself does not say that. Famously, Phyllis Trible argues that 'adam is androgynous and that at the creation of Eve (and only then) does gender diffeentiation enter the scene. This is a plausible interpretation of Gen 1 and 2, though cannot be proved beyond doubt - but then taking 'adam to mean male is in the same category.
That rather idiosyncratic (!) perspective would deal with the pre Gen 2:20 refs to 'adam (if one accepted it, in the absence of proof, mind) but not the ones after.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
And further:
quote:
Oh, sorry, and also during and after Eve's creation: Gen 2:20, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24 etc.
Not all these texts refer to the situation after the rib surgery. (So my point holds).
Later references do mean Trible's argument is not straightforward - as she acknowledges herself. From the creation of Eve onwards, 'adam is an ambiguous term - but even so, Gen 1 & 2 cannot be used to posit English 'man' as inclusive just because that's how many English versions translate 'adam pre- the creation of Eve.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Gordon - why is Trible's work idiosyncratic but Grudem's is not??
A loaded description n'est-ce pas?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Others will differ, but personally I have little problem with words like "batsman" or "postman".
Same here. I think it is mostly because those compound words have become the normal word for the role they describe, and lost some gendered. On the other hand I find most of the "ess" role names demeaning and avoid using them.
There is an interesting side-issue here. English once had a completely different system of indicating the sex of someone in a work role - "-er" was male, "-ster" female. So a man who baked was a baker, a woman a baxter. The same pairing gives us spinner/spinster, weaver/webster, brewer/brewster. A woman singer was a sangster, one who sewed a seamster.
But in early modern English it became gender-neutral. In other words men started calling themselves by names previously restricted to women, as if Brad Pitt were to be called an "actress" or Alan Sugar a "manageress" ( that those seem absurd to us is proof that the "-ess" suffix is nowadays diminutive and derogatory). Why did that happen? Was it a fit of inclusive language in the 13th century? An inevitable result of the loss of grammatical gender from English? (Old English estre is a feminine ending) Or just that the Frenchified "-ess" and Latinate "-trix" became fashionable? I've got no idea. Some of the words indicate people in leadership positions. "Dempster" was one who deemed, i.e. a judge. Were there woman judges? Or had the word become gender-netural by then? When did you last meet a "hordester"? (It's the Middle English name for the woman who kept the accounts in a nunnery)
Its interesting how some of the words have survived. Many of them can be surnames (which might be a Big Clue that not only did women work at trades in late mediaeval or early modern times, but either that they could sometimes pass on their surname to their children, or that the use of the feminine words as neutral became very widespread) "Spinster" became a generic term for an unmarried woman (presumably spinning was the default craft for a woman with no other trade or profession). Some died out. "Huckster" retains an independent existence in American English, separate from "hawker", though most Brits wouldn't recognise it. "Gangster" has become the gender-neutral form. "-ster" is still just about a productive form - "punster" may not be a common English word, but you know what it means, and its unlikely to be very old. I'd guess "trickster" and "jokester" are new as well. ("jester" is quite old but it is not a "-ster" word, its an "-er" word, a man who tells heroic stories "-gest" - it was originally not a fool but a minstrel - but good gigs are hard to find...)
quote:
My point is that one of the problems I have with "us men and our salvation" is that, as language has shifted, it is no longer accurate. The meaning of the translation has evolved away from the original text.
So I would absolutely advocate a return to more accurate wording. I agree that "us and our salvation" may not be the best translation (although personally I think it is much less open to misinterpretation than "us men...") for all the reasons you, Mousethief and others have given. Indeed, the example I gave in the bit you quoted was "for us men and women...". That may not be the best option, either - it's certainly somewhat clumsy.
But my point remains: if "us men and our salvation" really is meant to include men and women then what - other than the aesthetic - is the problem with updating the translation to reflect that.
Maybe there is no acceptable English form.
"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).
Not every language can do everything equally well. Maybe there is no way to translate the Creeds from Greek into English without misleading connotations or irritating amplifications. If that's true its a matter of which is worse, "us men" implying male sex, or "us" implying exclusiveness? The former seems worse to me. Sexism is a lot more prevalent than exclusiveness in our churches. They may of course be other churches that have the opposite problem.
If we had to use an obviously non-exclusive form then "for all people" is better contemporary English.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Ken:
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Maybe there is no acceptable English form.
"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).
What is wrong with saying "for us and our salvation" or even just "for our salvation"?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Maybe there is no acceptable English form.
"us humans" sounds silly. Also "human" tends to imply the biological species, which isn't quite what we mean. Most of the the variations on "us people" either imply a restriction to those present (or some other exclusive group).
What is wrong with saying "for us and our salvation" or even just "for our salvation"?
Read a post by me, Mousethief or Josephine for the answer to this one!
Carys
Posted by rebekah (# 2748) on
:
An anecdote that may be helpful.
I believe that in the USA 99.5% +
of Primary (Elementary)school teachers are women. A company publishing text books for trainee Primary teachers decided to better target their readers by making all references to teachers as 'she' or 'her'.
The result? Howls of outrage from the male students about being ignored, made invisible, put down etc. I can empathise with this, becuase I feel anything from mildly irritated (here we go again!) to almost physically stabbed when language excludes me.
I think that a second problem about the "men embraces women" argument is that it is inconsistently applied. It seems that it is true only when someone wants it to be. ie it doesn't apply when the "men" referred to are in the Ordination service in the Prayer Book!
A third problem exposed by research, is that even when people KNOW in their heads that "men embraces" etc they don't know it in their hearts or spirits or wherever else we know things. An experiment in the US had mixed classes of Primary aged children carefully taught that "men embraces.."etc, and later were asked to draw a policeman. Even when a female police officer had visited the class the day before as part of the experiment, the boys and the girls drew male police officers. Language is very powerful stuff, it shapes our view of the world.
By the way Gordon, it's interesting that qahave to tell you that the word "headship" as an abstract noun doesn't appear anywhere in the NT, and that the only people told to rule their households are women (
Posted by rebekah (# 2748) on
:
Sorry, the cat walked on the keyboard and sent my post before it was finished and tidied up!!!
My reference is to 1 Tim 5:14.
apologies from the cat.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
[slight tangent] Am I the only speaker of other other languages who finds this 'problem' absolutely fascinating? I cannot imagine having this conversation about Czech. I'll now return to observing [/slight tangent.
Thanks,
K.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its a matter of which is worse, "us men" implying male sex, or "us" implying exclusiveness? The former seems worse to me.
That's your judgement; mine would be the opposite (on the grounds that a) some uses of "man" as not implying male sex are well-established, and b) that exclusiveness is a significant temptation).
Rusty John's suggestion of "us sinners" has much merit. But that's beside the point - the important thing about such a conversation is that it weighs up the need for fidelity to the original, the aesthetic dimension, and the need to respond if women feel "inability to connect to the Gospel message" as Sienna so neatly put it.
Taking all those dimensions seriously means that none of them is an absolute need which automatically over-rides the others.
If female members of the congregation (of whatever age) feel strongly that a particular form of words excludes them, that's a good reason for change. Which needs to be taken alongside the aesthetic merits of whatever alternative is proposed, weighing up each individual case on its merits.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before" seems to me a stronger and more resonant phrase than the more recent alternative.
But if common usage (the point of reference for language) ever becomes so "gendered" that the phrase automatically invokes an image of a ladies toilet, then it will be time to retire it.
Perhaps the problem is that there is no usage which is common both to those with an extreme-feminist perspective (that history is a crime committed by men against women) and those who reject such a view ? Being told that we "must" use language in the way that such a view dictates rubs some of us up the wrong way...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Slightly relevant tangent...
Just had lunch in college (beef curry - very nice, since you ask). One student picked up a large bunch of keys belonging to another student and said:
"This is an impossibly large set of keys for a single person to have"
to which a colleague added:
"But it would be OK for a married person to have that many?"
What this proves is:
a) I have too much marking to do right now and am easily distracted
b) what you think you say is not what people always hear
so... to communicate effectively means you need to see how people hear things (yes. I know..) and speak accordingly.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
Something that occurs to me, almost as an aside (and apologies in advance for some clunky English) …
One of the problems claimed about using “for us and our salvation” is that it allows an ambiguity, with “us” possibly being taken to mean “us here present” or “people like us”.
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is “for us people and our salvation” or “for us humans and our salvation”, isn’t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). “For us people and our salvation” can mean “for people like us” or “for us people present”.
Unless the Greek has a word for “all”, and I don’t see any claim that it does (unless I’ve missed something), then “for us and out salvation” removes the gender ambiguity created by translation into English using “men” while retaining a broader ambiguity that was already present in the original?
And “for us men and our salvation” has the same ambiguity in English, so there little, if any, loss in using “for us and our salvation”?
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
I have difficulty accepting that an individual who knows themself and has developed a healthy self-image and self-worth could be upset on an emotional level by "inclusive" or "exclusive" language. Exactly whose group image am I pining to be included?
If an individual is looking for reasons or examples to feel bad about themself or reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image, they will find plenty of support more crushing and immediate than the vagaries of gender in language.
So those of us who have articulated that we find this language unhelpful are either making it up, or are looking for reinforcement for a weak and faulty self-image? Uhhh, thanks.
No, I'm suggesting that you and others who "find this language unhelpful" choose to use it to reinforce a bad self image. It's obvious to me that those who have articulated their concerns here are neither weak nor faulty, so why imply that language is forcing you into some false role?
This discussion is very interesting on an intellectual level and the various arguments have made some good points, but emotionally they fall flat. The genders have always been equal in my vision.
Uhhh, you're welcome.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
And - taking that aside even further into a tangent - perhaps 'us humans (or sinners)' won't do anyway. Didn't Christ come to redeem the whole of creation, not just 'us'? "For we know that all creation groans and travails in pain until now" (Rom.8:22).
Maybe the battle over inclusive language is still in its infancy.
Posted by Old Hundredth (# 112) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Thanks to the downloadable liturgies in Common Worship, at St Valentine's we have our own specially-made service booklets. In the BCP Communion booklet, we have done precisely this, so it reads 'for us and for our salvation'. Tangentially, we have also replaced all references to the Holy Ghost with 'Holy Spirit'.
This works well when you have 'purpose-built' booklets, but it irritates me when a church uses the prayer books but replaces the wording. It doesn't matter so much in the words spoken by the celebrant but it is unfair on newcomers who are not 'in the know' if the words which are spoken differ from those on the printed page as it can serve to make them feel conspicuous when they say something slightly different from the rest of the congo.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
No, I'm suggesting that you and others who "find this language unhelpful" choose to use it to reinforce a bad self image.
How blessed we all are that your suggestion is nonsense then. For a start its got nothing to do with my self-image, or that of any of the other men here who also object to it. It is because we do not wish to uise a form or words that misrepresents the gospel by implying the exclusion of those we intend to include.
I think some of us have got so used to stilted liturgical language that we no longer notice when something we say means the plain opposite of what it is meant to mean. The word "men" including women might have made sense in the 1662 BCP, but there is no excuse for using it that way in any text written in current English.
If nothing else it shows a wooden ear for the language, as if we were to write "thou has" or "you hast". It's naff.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How blessed we all are that your suggestion is nonsense then. For a start its got nothing to do with my self-image, or that of any of the other men here who also object to it. It is because we do not wish to uise a form or words that misrepresents the gospel by implying the exclusion of those we intend to include...
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it. The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.
I have no idea what the idiom in Greek is.
But it is certainly the case that in English "for us men and for our salvation" implies (though perhaps very strongly) the existence of other men somewhere who are not offered that salvation, almost as much as "for us" leaving the "men" out does. So the business about "men" being less exclusive od people not presnet is a bit of a red herring.
Posted by Old Hundredth (# 112) on
:
As I have read through this thread, I have been struck by a paradox (fortunately it didn't give me a black eye...)
Our use of language does indeed change over time, but it is interesting that in parallel with a move away from the use of words like 'men' and 'mankind' to mean the whole of humanity, there is a move towards the colloquial use of the word 'guys' to mean both genders. And not just to refer to a mixed group, but to an all-female one as well (Mrs Hundredth and I have been addressed by Pizza Hut waitresses as 'you guys').
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
No. That's not what I or - as far as I can tell - anyone else here is argueing.
What I am saying is that language has evolved. So using the word "men" in isolation conveys a gender-biased distortion of the gospel. Changing the words to "men and women" or "us" or the clumsy "human beings" is only editing the gospel if the gospel ever implied that salvation was only or primarily intended for men.
Peronel.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.
Presumably by the same token, people who are black, disabled, Irish, Jewish, Gypsies or wahtever "choose" to be offended by terms used about them. It's their choice and the rest of society should use what language it likes?
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
Are you saying that trying to use language that doesn't imply an exclusion of one group from salvation is "editing the gospel"? That's the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
I have to leave for work but will definitely be back.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Sine Nomina
This thread would make no sense at all without the underlying understanding by nearly all posters that women have been (and frequently still are) seen as inferior to men. One would think that alone would be enough to make the opponents of inclusive language change their minds. Apparently not.
Help me out here. Let's all agree that the Church oppressed women in former times. How does that mean that the Church currently intends to do so?
First of all I do not believe that the construct "for us men and our salvation" was ever meant to "exclude" women on any level. And I think every single person posting here acknowledges that. This is not about what was originally meant by the text or by the Church or some Victorian forefather. It's about a current (mis)-interpretation.
Interpretation works on more levels than gender.
Let's say two people go to a BCP service of Holy Communion. One believes that they have attended on the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, and the other believes that they have partaken in a memorial meal. Who's right? Who should be offended?
It seems to me that if we can overcome such a significant interpretive difficulty as what's actually going on at the Holy Table, we're probably equal to "men" in the Credo.
Furthermore, this entire argument is almost completely hypothetical. Of all of us posting on this thread, how many of us actually go to a church that uses the egregious construct? Probably just me.
And even if there are more of us who find ourselves at Prayer Book services, who amongst us actually believes that trendy, with-it Anglicanism intends today to exclude women, whatever words are used?
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So on one level you're right: of course noone in church is saying that women aren't saved.
Right.
quote:
is the attatchment to a now outdated and potentially misleading form of words sufficiently strong for them to be worth hanging onto, knowing that some will be offended? Is that form of words more important than knowing that they will impede some people's relationship with God?
The part of this I find interesting is that it doesn't square with the other gender issue that people are constantly wringing their hands about: men don't go to church. How does the "impeded" relationship fit with the oft-observed phenomenon that women outnumber men in church?
quote:
Old Hundredth induced an infarction
Thanks to the downloadable liturgies in Common Worship, at St Valentine's we have our own specially-made service booklets. In the BCP Communion booklet, we have done precisely this, so it reads 'for us and for our salvation'. Tangentially, we have also replaced all references to the Holy Ghost with 'Holy Spirit'.
Why use the Prayer Book at all, then?
There are perfectly acceptable alternative forms available to every Anglican church I know of to avoid creepy references to "Ghosts" and oppressive references to "men".
(by the way, I in no way buy Gordon Cheng's arguments about patriarchy. I'm an advocate for BCP-fidelity. And of course, pointing out the obvious that we all know what is intended by those words in the ever-rarer 8am Holy Communion services at St-Trendy and With-it that still use them).
HT
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Hookers Trick - have you read the whole of the thread? The last few posts seem to have got stuck on the Nicene Creed and Anglicanism, but originally we were talking about all churches, and several of us mentioned modern "worship songs" that talked about us being 'sons' or 'men'.
And believe you me, there are plenty of churches around who would happily put women down into inferior positions!
Not only that, and this is a point that hasn't been mentioned, yet, Christian women who are married to non-Christian husbands are, in many fundamentalist-type churches, relegated to more or less third class Christians, because they haven't got a man to "cover" them.
I don't want to hijack this thread by introducing a tangent, though I would say that there are a lot of men in the church who would rather like women to keep quiet, sit still, and make coffee, not waves.
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
I don't know anything about "worship songs", but my feeling in that area is the same as my feelings about the BCP. If it's a traditional hymn, keep as is. If you write a worship song in 2004, you are of course free to be as "inclusive" as you like.
However, if Nicodemia's portrait is correct, does anyone really think changing the pronouns in a few worship songs is the vanguard of the revolution?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Let's all agree that the Church oppressed women in former times. How does that mean that the Church currently intends to do so?
Women are not yet entirely regarded as equals in the Episcopal Church. According to Louis Crew's 1998 data,
quote:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members
I hope things have improved since 1998, but that wasn't exactly the dark ages. ECUSA rector search committees still ask themselves if their parishes are "ready to have a woman as rector." In 2001 the woman who used to be the interim priest in my parish was interviewing for jobs and I was one of her references; how the parish would receive their first female rector was a huge issue for the people who called me. And I can't imagine that things are better for female priests in the CofE. That's not to mention how women are regarded in other churches.
quote:
Furthermore, this entire argument is almost completely hypothetical. Of all of us posting on this thread, how many of us actually go to a church that uses the egregious construct? Probably just me.
ECUSA BCP, Rite One, Prayers of the People, used in my parish on a regular basis:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
This bugs the crap out of me.
And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in, where as recently as the 1980s they were still preaching against women working outside the home and where the current senior pastor will not employ a woman in any position other than secretarial because he works closely with everyone on the ministerial staff and is afraid that if he were to work with a woman people would think there was hanky-panky going on. If someone were to spit in your face, would you choose not to be insulted?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Ruth dear your education is showing. Any moment now you'll be launching into "If you prick us do we not bleed?" and the poor old robot will have to sit down to have his/her matrices recalibrated!
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Ruth, who changed "who by thy holy Apostle" to
quote:
who in thy holy Word
???
Leetle M.
Dragging along with a 1662 prayer book
[ 07. June 2005, 18:15: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Leetle Masha, Marion Hatchett (Commentary on the American Prayer Book) says "in the holy Word" has replaced the reference to "thy holy Apostle" in the 1979 BCP because "The quotation is from 1 Timothy 2:1; since many scholars no longer consider this a Pauline epistle, the preamble is changed to eliminate a stumblingblock."
Wanderer, dear heart, the decreased use of the subjunctive is evidence that we live in a fallen world, and we must all do our little part to bring about God's kingdom on earth.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!
I knew you'd have the definitive answer.
Leetle M.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
First of all I do not believe that the construct "for us men and our salvation" was ever meant to "exclude" women on any level. And I think every single person posting here acknowledges that. This is not about what was originally meant by the text or by the Church or some Victorian forefather. It's about a current (mis)-interpretation.
I think this rather misses the point. The issue isn’t whether the original authors necessarily intended to exclude women, but whether they did so anyway. A history book that ignores any contribution that women , or black people, have made in history may not be intended to ignore them, but by omission may be erroneous in its presentation of the facts, may be biased, may not be appropriate teaching material.
I’m reminded of a science text-book printed some years ago (but not that many years ago). Intended for school use, it included pictures of children “doing science”, involved in various experiments. All of the children depicted were boys, except one – and she was pictured blowing bubbles. The book wasn’t intended to offend females, the authors probably had no intention of denigrating women, if asked they would probably have said that they entirely agreed that women could be as capable of science as men. But in what they had produced they had revealed an attitude towards the roles of the sexes that showed science as “boys’ work”.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Thanks, Ruth! Very interesting!
I knew you'd have the definitive answer.
Leetle M.
Well, the definitive book, at least.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
I?m reminded of a science text-book printed some years ago (but not that many years ago). Intended for school use, it included pictures of children ?doing science?, involved in various experiments. All of the children depicted were boys, except one ? and she was pictured blowing bubbles. The book wasn?t intended to offend females, the authors probably had no intention of denigrating women, if asked they would probably have said that they entirely agreed that women could be as capable of science as men. But in what they had produced they had revealed an attitude towards the roles of the sexes that showed science as ?boys? work?.
I just had an interesting experience. I was listening to the news on Radio 4 and there was a story about the parents of a murdered optician suing the police for failing to protect their son. I italicise it because it took me completely by surprise. I heard optician and expected it to have been a woman. I suspect this is because I have, in the course of my life been to three different opticians and they've all been female! It has nothing to do with the word, but with my experience. It doesn't mean that I don't think men can be opticians.
Carys
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues? In much the same way "Thy Holy Apostle" was changed to "Thy Holy Word" to remove a stumbling block, why not look at creative, scriptural ways to remove some of the stumbling blocks caused by exclusive language?
I'm particularly sorry Gordon has bowed out of the thread because he thinks its a dead horse, because I would really like an answer to how some of the specific language I proposed would lead to a misunderstanding of the various relationships we were discussing, in particular, how mentioning Sarah during the liturgy somehow violates Pauline ideas about headship or the concept of God as our Creator.
I had not thought that even the more conservative strands of Anglicanism would take exception to such an addition, and would really like to hear the theological reasoning behind it - because I honestly can't understand why it's problematic, and I do genuinely want to understand. I'm enough of a "good little Anglican" to think that the best way forward is to try to look for gender-inclusive language that already exists within our Scripture and tradition, and incorporate that. It's certainly there to be found, so why is it such a big "boo" idea to some people, to borrow a phrase?
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
We say "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human."
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
OK guys, I'm trying, I really am.
Help me work out how changing:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
To
quote:
...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever
Will solve this problem:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.
?
And Sienna says
quote:
HT, I'm more in sympathy with your BCP-fidelity position than you would guess. But when the next BCP revision comes (and we all know it will - presumbly when we run out of other things to fight over ), don't you think it's worthwhile to start considering these issues?
No.
There are already plenty of alternatives authorized for use (and some unauthorized options, as Old Hundredth gives evidence) to address "these issues".
More food for thought. After you've all brought back all these people to church who left because they had to say
quote:
According to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesu our Lord
how are you going to deal with people like me who are off-put by the "new language" and stop going to church?
Or do I not count because I'm not offended?
Posted by Mark M (# 9500) on
:
(dictatorship-of-the-Mark:)
No. Not needed.
(real world:)
I have found some inclusive language things that I actually find more fitting than the default. However, as a rule, I feel that the 'old stuff' has not run out of steam, and that particularly as the language is being offered to a special person, it should indeed be 'special'.
Oh, drat, I misread this whole thing: I realise now it's not talking about modernisation but about rephrasing so as not to offend anyone. Still, I think that the 'old stuff' should be seen as not excluding anyone (e.g. man = 'mankind', but we can still just say 'man'), and that the new stuff unfortunately panders too far in the direction of p.c. gone wrong. An example in a secular context is calling someone a chair, when we can call them a chairman... or to neglect to call a female a waitress (in other languages, gramatically incorrect, and and insult!).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Help me work out how changing:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God, who in thy holy Word hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men...
To
quote:
...give thanks for all people/ humans/ whatever
Will solve this problem:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Only 378 women priests are employed as rectors (9.7% of 3,902 rectors). Women priests are 17.7% of 1,062 vicars.
Women rectors have only one-fourth the share of male rectors in overseeing parishes of 1,000+ members. Only 1.4% of all female rectors now occupy such positions, compared with 5.2% of all male rectors and 4.4% of all black priests. Only five women are rectors of parishes with 1,000 or more members.
?
I never said it would. You stated that the church no longer intends to oppress women. I think there are still elements in the church that do oppress women, and since we're quite aware of how that happens, it can no longer be said to be unconscious. I cited the facts about female priests in the ECUSA getting crappier jobs as evidence.
As other people have already said here, language matters. Language affects how we see others and how we see ourselves. Inclusive language will not suddenly cause people to flock to our churches nor will it instantly make rector search committees less wary about interviewing women for good jobs--and no one has made such claims, despite how you've twisted what has previously been posted. But exclusive language says to many women that we don't count as much as men do, and that is never something that should be said in church. Exclusive language is part of a mindset that allows both men and women on search committees to just interview men because they've always had men and they're not sure the parish is "ready" for a female rector. It is important to be clear that women do matter as much as men do, because historically it has been quite clear that we didn't.
Posted by TrudyTrudy (I say unto you) (# 5647) on
:
RuthW
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
But Gordon, you still haven't explained exactly how gender-inclusive language threatens these relationships. For example, how does changing "The God of Abraham" to "The God of Abraham and Sarah" cause us to lose our concept of God as our creator, or of men and women as being created in God's image, or constitute an assault on Paul's theology of marriage? Is the idea that Sarah might be a important contributor to salvation history worthy of mention threatening in a way I'm failing to understand?
Hi Sienna, still here!
[croaks: "I'm not dead yet" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
You asked for a specific response to this. My response is I can't see that it's a huge problem, but like a lot of things, it depends on why it's done. Add to this that where possible, I like to mirror biblical language, as I find that sometimes issues that I consider totally unimportant turn out to be significant.
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.
Now to turn to your example: I can't see off the top of my head that acknowledging that Sarah is blessed by God alongside Abraham is going to cause us those sorts of difficulties. It may however raise other difficulties that I am as yet unaware of.
Here are just a few straws in the wind that may—or may not, I'm not sure and would need to think about it more— indicate a broader difficulty. I observe that to speak of "The God of Abraham and Sarah" would be most unusual in NT terms—in fact it never happens. So Jesus, for example, will speak of God as being the God of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".
But I don't doubt that he would not have hesitated to say the God of "Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel" if it was important that he do so. I don't consider that his not doing so is an indication of his culture-boundness, although I suppose others may. After all, this is a man who is not afraid to open up a theological discourse with a lone Samaritan woman; I doubt that fear of the censure of his peers would have caused him to adopt conservative phraseology.
So: it seems to me that speaking of the "God of Abraham" preserves the non-disendorsement [!-sorry for that word] of patriarchy that I have been arguing is a feature of Old and New Testament. It may well be that it also reflects a corporate thinking about humanity that our Western individualistic perspective too easily elides past. It may even be that implicit in such language is the sort of thinking that Peter makes explicit when he says:
quote:
1Pet. 3:4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.
1Pet. 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands,
1Pet. 3:6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Now I'm not going to the stake for this theory at all, but it is an example of nuance ( and nuance that resides within the specific form of words we use) that may be lost when we decide for the sake of feminist (or even female, or broader cultural) sensibilities to alter our language to speak of "The God of Abraham and Sarah".
quote:
And you still haven't answered my question of why, if there is no Scriptural or doctrinal reason not to be inclusive with particular language, we shouldn't do so when it is causing people to struggle and stumble. If it costs us nothing in terms of sacrificing truth, but only something in terms of personal comfort level, give me a reason not to do it that outweighs helping people who find the language a stumbling block, even after it has been "properly explained."
If the sole reason for change was to remove offence, this might be a good argument—and even then, we would have to contend with whether or not, in our haste to make the gospel more palatable, we were dismissing as trivial something that turned out, on reflection, to be rather important (eg the "sonship" mistake I think I was making with regard to Romans 8).
But as the discussion has progressed, I rather think that we can push our analysis a bit further, can't we? That is, there have now been a range of reasons put as to why not changing to inclusive language is offensive.
Some of those reasons are fair enough. So it is unfortunate and quite wrong if by a trick of language, women feel that they are being excluded from salvation.
Other of those reasons seem, at least to me, to be a little bit more open to dispute. So if the offence comes because people feel that it is being implied that men have an authority in church that women don't, then it may be that people have understood correctly what the so-called exclusive language is trying to express (which is where my Dead Horse reference comes in, BTW).
To put this another way: sometimes the adherence to non-inclusive language in the face of objections that no-one disputes (eg that no-one wants to say that women are excluded from salvation) reflect a genuine and significant disagreement in other areas. I certainly don't like to be read as implying that women are less important, or excluded from salvation, as I don't believe those things are true. It's the other questions that remain in dispute which would underlie my inertia; others (such as Hooker's Trick) may express a similar inertia about this question, but we then discover that our reluctance to change relies on different grounds. (I will say, though, that I agree with HT's reasons, even if he doesn't agree with mine!)
This may not push us closer to agreement but hopefully it pushes us closer to clarity and charity!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.
As a matter of theology and history, that's absolutely true. But a person reading it today will not gain that understanding, because "son" no longer conveys "all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright" it did when the passage was written. Even at the time of the Authorized Version, sonship didn't absolutely convey that meaning, since daughters (if without brothers) had specific inheritance rights that might be equivalent to those of sons.
This is a case where no modern word, or even any convenient phrase, comes anywhere close to conveying the full meaning of the Greek.
John
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
I'd go for this patriarchy thing if we were still hunters and gatherers, or the next tribe over was out after our flocks. But since we don't even roll down car windows anymore now that we've got electric buttons to do it for us, I have to think this is one of those things the Holy Spirit was going to reveal to us in time.
So I don't think we have to use hunter and gatherer language now either, you know, since plenty of women are bringing home the bacon and frying it up in the pan.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Sine,
Whether or not the hunter-gatherer thang helps explain patriarchy, I don't know. But it doesn't help us understand why Jesus and Paul, and the other apostles, who ministered in largely urban settings, should continue to not disendorse it (sorry, that word again).
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Those urban centers were still pre-industrial, almost pre-machine, where the greater physical strength of the male in both work and personal defense was crucial and the high infant mortality rate made women as breeding stock a commodity to be protected. Patriarchy paid back then.
Neither of those is still the case in our society. Yet you would take words and concepts that apply specifically to that stage of human development and apply them to ours.
Posted by Foaming Draught (# 9134) on
:
Both Testaments slag off professional clergy to their heart's content, Jesus Himself being a master-slagger-offer. If Cranmer, instead of being a shilly-shallying floater between fealty to Rome and to what the Spirit showed him in his conscience, had written rubrics which identified President or Minister as Hypocrite or Whited Sepulchre or Den of Vipers, would Gordon and Hooker's Trick still think that the contemporary sense of liturgical language is unimportant?
[ 08. June 2005, 02:59: Message edited by: Foaming Draught ]
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...
I'm sorry that you feel that way because I see you as a fine example of exactly the point I've been trying to make. You chose not to accept the gender-biased attitude of that church in defining your self-image.
quote:
If someone were to spit in your face, would you choose not to be insulted?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
That's commendable of you, ken. You are choosing not to use language that suggests "exclusion". Others choose to be insulted by gender-biased language. Your decision has everything to do with your self-image and how you support and project it.
Presumably by the same token, people who are black, disabled, Irish, Jewish, Gypsies or wahtever "choose" to be offended by terms used about them. It's their choice and the rest of society should use what language it likes?
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
quote:
Originally posted by chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
The gospel, as always, will continue to be edited to reflect modern changes in understanding.
Are you saying that trying to use language that doesn't imply an exclusion of one group from salvation is "editing the gospel"? That's the most nonsensical argument I've heard in a long time.
EDIT, tr.v. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon, thank you very much for your reply - I'm glad that reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated. Your post has given me some insight into a particular point of view that I hope will be helpful as our parish works its way through this. (although I'm still baffled by one gentleman's assertion that Sarah isn't "Biblical")
I'm a wary of the "lack of disendorsement" argument, because there are several things Christ never "disendorsed" that we now agree (I hope) are wrong - slavery being the most obvious. We are in complete agreement that we need a word other than "disendorse."
At any rate, I've got an 11th grade paper on Hemingway to proofread (speaking of patriarchy ) - I'll try to return to this later this evening.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Sorry for the double post...Gort said:
quote:
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
But there's a fundamental difference between "the rest of society" and freedom of speech on the one hand and a Christian church that is trying to conduct itself and its services in accordance with the Gospel on the other.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...And Gort, your remarks about self-image are completely off-base. I have a healthy self-image, thank you very much, no thanks to the church I was brought up in...
I'm sorry that you feel that way because I see you as a fine example of exactly the point I've been trying to make. You chose not to accept the gender-biased attitude of that church in defining your self-image.
It would be great if women didn't have to keep making that choice, because it sucks up energy that a lot of us would rather use on other things. But with exclusive language we have to making that effort.
quote:
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Sounds to me like you take offense at it.
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
My first reaction when I hear inflammatory racist terminology is, "What an incredibly thick-skulled moron."
Sounds to me like you take offense at it.
Nah... it's just a judgement call. It is difficult to cause offense with me unless you're physically threatening me.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!
I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies!
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
...But there's a fundamental difference between "the rest of society" and freedom of speech on the one hand and a Christian church that is trying to conduct itself and its services in accordance with the Gospel on the other.
"the rest of society" was taken from chapelhead's quote. I agree with you and sympathize with the efforts being made to modernize liturgy and common prayer. It's just that it seems an effort made by those who have already rejected gender bias in hope of somehow helping those who are unable to rise above the effects on their own. Commendable but frustrating. The old "lead a horse to water..." proverb, I guess.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
But, assuming a close-to-literal translation of the original Greek is ?for us people and our salvation? or ?for us humans and our salvation?, isn?t that same ambiguity also present in the Greek (although arguably not as emphatic). ?For us people and our salvation? can mean ?for people like us? or ?for us people present?.
I have no idea what the idiom in Greek is.
But it is certainly the case that in English "for us men and for our salvation" implies (though perhaps very strongly) the existence of other men somewhere who are not offered that salvation, almost as much as "for us" leaving the "men" out does. So the business about "men" being less exclusive od people not presnet is a bit of a red herring.
I disagree. Men/humans is in apposition to the pronoun, so it is not qualifying it restrictively, but illustrating who us is. I.e. it is saying `for us, that is for humans'.
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Yes, people "choose" to be offended, whether they are conscious of the fact or not, and yes, the rest of society should use whatever language it likes, short of slander and libel.
I partially agree with you here. I would tend though to talk about choosing not to be offended rather than choosing to be offended. In the case of non-inclusive language, the choice I make is not to be excluded by it, especially in the case of trad stuff.
I've been thinking about rewording trad stuff and doing modern versions of prayers/canticles etc and it strikes me that for me at least, it is not depends very much on the context. I dislike changing the words of a hymn at all (though I recognise that there are various hymns which come down to us changed) but changing without to outside in There is a Green Hill far away is basically ok. without in the sense 'not within' is not a common usage today (although I do use it occasionally) and I remember being confused by it as a child. The substitution is also very simple -- one two syllable word for another so it doesn't matter much if one isn't looking at the words and sings without on autopilot. However, I object to changing Slow to chide and swift to bless in Love Divine to Slow to blame and swift to bless because blame does not mean the same as chide. Similarly, CW has changed a couple of words in the canticles from the ASB and I noticed this morning that the heights of the mountains (in the Venite) is now quite normal for me (rather than peaks which tripped me up when we first changed). However, I still strongly dislike the change in the Te Deum from you did not abhor the Virgin's womb to you humbly chose ... because humbly chose is so weak and loses the power of the original. So with inclusive language, I'm fine with the use of neighbours rather than fellow men in the confession (even in Trad language) because there is no real change in meaning but object to the omission of men in For us men and our salvation because it changes the meaning. I think though I could get used to For us humans even though it currently sounds ugly (but so did heights).
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I was just feeling irritated anyway because I'd posted that point at 21:50 on the 4th June and Mousethief had made it again at 02:45 on the 5th June without reference to the fact I'd already posted it so I was feeling ignored!
I'm not sure how I missed that. My apologies!
That's ok. Given the number of times, we've said it since (and someone still asked what the problem was) it probably needed repeating!
Carys
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on
:
Re: huios. I was under the impression that this meant "offspring", which in a language like Greek, or French, or Spanish, is masculine (grammatically not in the sense of natural gender) when you aren't sure who it's referring to, or when it's referring to a mixed group.
So when my mother says "my children", and we say "we're not children, we're grown up", and she says "you'll always be my children, I gave birth to you" and besides we are one son and one daughter, then she is using the word which would be "huioi" in Greek, not the word, which we object to, which would be "paida" in Greek, which would mean "people under the age of 18", and which happens to be neuter. (forgive my crap Greek but you get the idea).
This distinction occurs in other langauges, too: in Kiswahili "mwana" means the person you have given birth to whereas "mtoto" means someone under 18. English doesn't have that distinction, so must decide on "son" (or "daughter") to indicate lineage/birth, or "children" which can mean either a family relationship, or an age thing.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:
Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Re: huios. I was under the impression that this meant "offspring"
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where this is the case. The Greek for 'offspring' is 'sperma' the Greek for 'child' is 'teknon' or 'paidion', and the Greek for daughter is 'thugater'.
I think 'huios' almost always means 'son'; I haven't yet checked all 344 NT occurrences.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Question for those arguing that "man" means male to the younger person of unspecified gender in the street:Are man-eating tigers and sharks a danger to women?
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?
Of course. The priesthood of all believers is a well established Protestant principle.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
I don't know about anyone else, but I think I've been consistent in arguing that the meaning of "man" depends on the context, as is the case with many other words. If we started another thread to work out whether the word "sex" meant "copulation", "gender" or something else, I think we'd struggle to agree on one option in that case too. Ditto whether "hoover" refers to a particular brand of machine, vacuum cleaners in general or a former American president.
Maybe this is actually a bad deal for men. After all, women are granted an unambiguous term to refer to their sex (or gender).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
Not us. And no move to either - Jesus is male so there is no ambiguity in English, so no-one worries about it. Even though it is still arguably a mistranslation, as the origianal Greek word is derived from anthropos (IIRC) (Do some English versions say "and was made flesh"?)"
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
And finally, since we're discussing the Creeds, is anyone using "and was made human" instead of "and was made man"?
Not us. And no move to either - Jesus is male so there is no ambiguity in English, so no-one worries about it. Even though it is still arguably a mistranslation, as the origianal Greek word is derived from anthropos (IIRC) (Do some English versions say "and was made flesh"?)"
Some people do worry about it, actually, saying the point of the incarnation is that Jesus became a human being, not that Jesus became a male human being. I think they have a point, because it doesn't say "and was made a man"; "and was made man" is one of those now obsolete usages where "man" is supposed to refer to the entire species.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
I'm sure some people do worry about it - I was just remarking that it hasn't been worried about in our church yet.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
quote:
I'm sure some people do worry about it - I was just remarking that it hasn't been worried about in our church yet.
We worried about it in General Synod, where the internationally agreed translation ('and became truly human') was rejected as being "too transatlantic" in the words of a bishop I know - the Cof E retained 'and was made man' - which said bishop acknowledged was a poor translation, but better that than something that sounded, well, American.
[With the sound of cavalry trumpets, our hero rides into the battle...]
I proposed that we use 'truly human' and was defeated in the vote - and then wrote to the Revision Committee to tell them their anti-American comments were racist.
Some of my best friends are American, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one....
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I never said it would. You stated that the church no longer intends to oppress women. I think there are still elements in the church that do oppress women,
I'm not persuaded that your statistics prove an "intent" to oppress women.
quote:
and since we're quite aware of how that happens,
Which is surely not through the recitation of the traditional credo.
quote:
it can no longer be said to be unconscious. I cited the facts about female priests in the ECUSA getting crappier jobs as evidence.
This is tangential, but I'm also not sure I buy that women, who as a cohort are newer to the priesthood than the men they are presumably competing against for the uncrappy jobs, are being oppressed based on their gender.
Also, the Virginia Theological Seminary reports its current student ration 53/47 male/ female.
So presumably if almost half the seminary population were absent, those "crappy" jobs would go unfilled.
quote:
twisted what has previously been posted.
I'm not twisting anything. I'm hearing 2 claims ("traditional language is sexist" and "women have been/ are discriminated against in church based on their gender"). I'm trying to work out a link between these two claims. Assuming either is true.
Obviously I don't think traditional language is sexist. And if I did, I would go to a service that didn't use it and leave the oppressors to go slowly to perdition with their wicked exclusive language.
Remember, we do have options.
And for those who say "well, my church doesn't have options" I would say that one of the nice things about having so many denominations is that one can choose one that doesn't offend one.
Chorister's original question was "Was it really necessary to change these very well known phrases, when we all know that 'mankind' means all people, not just men?" (way back on page one). My answer is "no" and yours is "yes" but luckily for us we are both accomodated (although if hymnbooks are anything to judge by I am less accomodated than you, but that must be my imagination because the church is a patriarchal conspiracy).
quote:
Qlib asks
Question for those arguing that "man" (as in "and was made man") does NOT means male to the Church:
So it's OK for women to be priests then?
Of course it's OK. Why wouldn't it be?
It's OK for them to bishops, too.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
I quoth:
quote:
However, I object to changing Slow to chide and swift to bless in Love Divine to Slow to blame and swift to bless because blame does not mean the same as chide.
Obviously, what I meant was in Praise, my soul, the King of heaven. Not sure of what I was thinking but when sang Praise, my soul at CU tonight and I was amused!
Carys
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I'm hearing 2 claims ("traditional language is sexist" and "women have been/ are discriminated against in church based on their gender"). I'm trying to work out a link between these two claims.
Sexist language is one of the things that reinforces sexist ideology, and sexist ideology promotes discrimination against women.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sexist language is one of the things that reinforces sexist ideology, and sexist ideology promotes discrimination against women.
In that case, HT—who uses traditional language for demonstrably non-sexist reasons, unlike yours truly—should feel under no compulsion whatsoever to change.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Having non-sexist reasons to use sexist language doesn't make the language any less sexist or any less objectionable.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Also, HT may have non-sexist reasons, but unless he stands up every service and explains them, odds are some in the audience will be misinterpreting it.
ANd, as I've said repeatedly, this isn't to me primarily about political correctness. It's about comprehensibility. Language has moved on, so words which meant one thing now mean another. That it seems to me is a problem, because it risks distorting the gospel.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
So not only I, but he should be compelled to change? Is this really what you're saying, RuthW?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
What do you mean by compelled? If you mean that the prayer book should be dragged forcibly from his spasming, protesting fingers, then absolutely not. Ultimately, the responsibility for the language he uses and whether it helps or hinders his congregation rests with him.
However it seems to me that part of communicating effectively is taking account of how you will be heard, and part of ministering well is being receptive to the needs of the community you serve. If outdated language is impeding the reception of the gospel because the words convey an unintended message of exclusion then, it seems to me, that is a problem.
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on
:
Gah.... spare a prayer for the poor ol' Western Rite Orthodoxen, who want to sing the Tantum Ergo but break their teeth on the line "Procedenti ab utroque!" [Who, from Both, with Both is One]
Leetle M.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I never said anything about compelling anyone to change. I'm not that powerful, and neither am I that unreasonable. Perhaps you would care to tell me where you got the idea that I would or could compell anyone to do anything?
HT's congregation is apparently full of people who are perfectly happy with the old prayerbook service. HT's rector is, one hopes, someone who does her/his job well, and as the decision about what language to use in a church service is in the ECUSA the rector's decision, it seems to me we can safely leave that decision to her/him.
Whether or not a particular liturgy uses inclusive language is hardly the only factor in any rector's decisions in these matters. Changing the liturgy people are familiar with can be a very messy business, and one size does not fit all. The rector at my parish would dearly love to have us use the contemporary version of the Lord's Prayer, but opposition to this potential change was so vehement and so fierce that he decided to let it go for the time being.
That said, I will continue to maintain that the traditional prayerbook language is sexist and that using sexist language in church is not a good thing.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
OK, thanks for the clarifications, RuthW and Peronel. I am happy with "each man, er, person, did what was right in their own eyes"
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am happy ....
So that's OK then, Gordon's happy. Churches will continue to go on using the language of a time when women were marginalised and excluded. Because to force people to change would be wrong, wouldn't it? And we all know that all the churches who still use that language now are full of really nice people who mean well and really respect women and wouldn't dream of deliberately marginalising or insulting anybody. Great.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Ah—so you would compel change, Qlib? I thought someone might oblige. It's the typical intolerance of those who demand tolerance.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
No - I wouldn't. I just feel that the "Oh, so now you're going to force us?" argument is a feeble abdication of moral responsibility.
By the way, women aren't demanding 'tolerance', they are asking for vocal recognition that they, too, are children of God and made in in the image of God. But, by labelling the request as an intolerant authoritarian aggressive demand, you are obviously able to feel more comfortable about refusing to deal with it.
[ 09. June 2005, 08:49: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
No—I wouldn't
Well that's a relief. I can breathe easy.
quote:
By the way, women aren't demanding 'tolerance', they are asking for vocal recognition that they, too, are children of God and made in in the image of God.
Right. Women are children of God and made in the image of God. And if you read through this thread, you'll discover I've said as much on a number of occasions.
I don't demand tolerance either, but would be happy to receive it where offered.
[fixed code]
[ 09. June 2005, 14:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.
And, yes, as someone else said, there is a downside for men to the fact that "'man' embraces woman"* but the downside for women is much greater. Because invisibility is a tool of the oppression. The fact that nice people don't mean to be oppressive is irrelevant.
* Women's liberation has always, at it's most profound, been about men's liberation too
Posted by Pob (# 8009) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression... invisibility is a tool of the oppression. The fact that nice people don't mean to be oppressive is irrelevant.
As an illustration, I regularly take my daughter to a toddler music group where I'm the only male carer present. The woman in charge usually makes the effort to be inclusive and refer to 'mums and dads', but sometimes she'll forget and say something like, 'Everybody go back to mum.' And every time she does this I feel uncomfortable, as if I've somehow intruded on a place I don't properly belong.
It could be argued that 'mum' is being used as a shorthand for 'carer' (the female embracing the male, if you like - and after all, until relatively recently, this sort of thing was exclusively female territory). And the woman is very nice and welcoming and has never consciously made me feel excluded. But that's the effect it has.
I wouldn't want to go to a church that made me feel that way every week, not because people were forgetting to be inclusive but because it was written into the service.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.
Well it's not my experience. Sydney Diocese is a very "for us men and our salvation" type of place. Very conservative theologically, not big on formal liturgy but where we are, there would be very little in the way of concession to inclusive language.
A couple of weekends ago my wife went to the Darling Harbour Convention Centre (Sydney CBD) for a conference of 3000 women, organised by female leaders within Sydney diocese, with women speakers addressing sessions of between 1000 and 3000 women. The basic position of the committee and the speakers is theologically conservative. The gospel of free grace through the death of Jesus was clearly preached. This conference is not a one off freaky tokenistic venture; it's an annual event in a calendar full of similar events. I don't believe there's anything like it in the whole country.
The church I attend makes no concessions to inclusive language. There are 80 women in the main Wednesday women's Bible study, and all up a couple of hundred. Women are employed by the church, they lead, they administrate, they organise and they teach in a variety of contexts.
Believe me, they are not marginalised. My wife, who is no shrinking violet, would not hesitate to tell me if they were/she was.
I don't doubt that patriarchal churches have done all sorts of dodgy things over the years, and there is plenty of evidence for this. But the link from patriarchy to women's oppression is not straightforward, and the experience of people like my wife testifies to this. As I keep saying, the problem is sin.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
I wouldn't want to go to a church that made me feel that way every week, not because people were forgetting to be inclusive but because it was written into the service.
Thank you, Pob
No-one wants for force anyone to change. But it would be so much better if the mindset of (most) men were such that (a) in the first place things had been written inclusively, and (b) that those today who look at liturgy, hymns, and those who get up in the pulpits and speak (especially in non-liturgical churches) would not have to be reminded that 50% of the world is female, and be nudged to adjust their language.
I don't know the proportion of women priests/pastors to men across the denominations, but most women in church are looking at a man in front of them, whether at the altar, pulpit, or striding across a stage. It would be so pleasant and enabling to know they recognised us as their sisters in Christ, equal in God's eyes, and this to them came naturally.
It got to the point in one church where if the preacher said once more "Brothers, I say to you...." I was going to get up and wave a banner that said "AND SISTERS!"
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
Gordon, I find great irony in the fact that the subtitle of your new book is "How Words Change Lives."
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Gordon, I find great irony in the fact that the subtitle of your new book is "How Words Change Lives."
It's just a booklet, Sine. I make no great claims.
There is a very moving section of the associated DVD where my wife discusses her long term illness and how she found deep encouragement from the ideas about suffering in Romans 5 and Hebrews 12. That would be an example of how words have helped her to endure difficulty in life.
But I suppose you would be suggesting that words can be used as a tool of oppression, and are in the case of words used to uphold patriarchy. All I can say (apart from the arguments I've been putting above) is that the experience of the women I know best suggests to me that the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable. I suppose my wife could be concealing the truth of her experience from me for reasons of her own, but she does tend to be quite outspoken if she senses I am not giving her a fair hearing.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable.
Saying that the link isn't inevitable and that - now we are more aware of such things - people can make efforts to overcome it, isn't the same thing as saying that it doesn't exist.
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But I suppose you would be suggesting that words can be used as a tool of oppression, and are in the case of words used to uphold patriarchy. All I can say (apart from the arguments I've been putting above) is that the experience of the women I know best suggests to me that the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable. I suppose my wife could be concealing the truth of her experience from me for reasons of her own, but she does tend to be quite outspoken if she senses I am not giving her a fair hearing.
I think it's fairly incontrovertible that words can be and indeed have been in the past, used as a tool of oppression and to uphold patriarchy.
I don't you've addressed the point that others have made here, that some people do find non-inclusive language excludes them and distracts their worship. All you have said in response is that your wife doesn't find it excludes her and you know lots of other people who don't feel excluded. That's brilliant, but doesn't actually help those who do.
(It may also be the case that people in your churches don't mind non-gender-inclusive language because those who were offended or who felt excluded have left)
S
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All I can say (apart from the arguments I've been putting above) is that the experience of the women I know best suggests to me that the patriarchy-oppression link is in no way inevitable. I suppose my wife could be concealing the truth of her experience from me for reasons of her own, but she does tend to be quite outspoken if she senses I am not giving her a fair hearing.
I'm getting somewhat frustrated here. I - and others - have said that we do find this language excluding. That we do find it misleading. That it does impede our worship and our relationship with God. The response on this thread? "Morons". "Using it to justify low self esteem". "Wanting to change the Gospel".
Imagine if I were to say, "I don't like sprouts". Your response? "My wife likes sprouts". So? If you were to serve sprout souffle up at a church dinner I - and a whole bunch of others, because a dislike of sprouts is pretty common - would go hungry.
That's what we're talking about. Noone here is argueing that every use of the word "man" in church is intended to oppress, or that every woman will be bothered by it. That's nonsensical. Equally, noone is trying to mandate what language you use. Rather, we're argueing that some do feel excluded and that - as language moves on - these words are becoming more archaic, more misleading, and potentially more offensive.
You can choose, if you like, not to respond to that. You can choose, as it appears you do, to reject feminism because women should not share authority with men. But argueing - as some have on this thread - that no reasonable, well-adjusted woman could possibly be so stupid as to deliberately choose to be bothered by gendered language is damn insulting to those of us who have taken the time to explain just why we find this language unhelpful.
My final point is this: the purpose of the church is to minister to the sick, not to the well. For every woman like RuthW and myself who is able to say that this is an issue, and why, there will be those who cannot. There will be those who have been damaged by male authority, whether in the church or out of it. THere will be those struggling to establish a sense of self and an awareness of God's love for them. There will be adolescents girls who are developing into an awareness of themselves as women, and adolescent boys who are learning to relate to their female peers, in part by observing the examples modelled in their churches. The odds are your congregation contains all of these.
Why allow your language to be a barrier to them?
Peronel.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.
I think this is a very weak argument. First of all, I remain unconvinced that Ishmael was being deliberately theologically precise when he wrote the song. I think he used the word "son" because he was a bloke and that's what came naturally to him. (though I wish I'd taken the opportunity to discuss the matter with him when I had a Chinese takeaway at his house some years ago...)
Secondly, even if he was making such a subtle point when writing the song, the vast majority of those singing it would not be able to appreciate the subtle point without a far greater awareness of inheritance in Biblical times than is apparent in most congregations I've come across.
Basically, the meaning of the song doesn't lose very much by changing "son" into "child" and doing so avoids causing unneeded offence or confusion.
This discussion is rather academic these days, isn't it? As far as I am aware, this song is one that has reached its "sing by" date and is dropping down the playlist quite swiftly
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.
This is another example of where language has moved on. "Sons of God" simply doesn't have that connotation any more - it's something that needs to be explained and, even then, I doubt many will get it on a visceral level. And talking about male and female sons is, it seems to me, nonsensical.
So if you wanted to convey this meaning to a modern audience, you might want to consider using "heirs of God". That, it happens, is non-gender specific which, it seems to me, is fine: it isn't the gender of 'sons' that was the issue in the original, it was their status as heirs.
Peronel.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Imagine if I were to say, "I don't like sprouts". Your response? "My wife likes sprouts". So? If you were to serve sprout souffle up at a church dinner I - and a whole bunch of others, because a dislike of sprouts is pretty common - would go hungry.
That's not really my argument. I simply make the point that there are plenty of people, both women and men, who don't have the problem of feeling excluded; my arguments for retaining traditional language don't rely on feelings of inclusion or exclusion.
If I were to be using the "sprout" argument—and I repeat, I'm not— then ISTM that there are plenty of "non-sprout" churches around these days, and quite enough for them to be minding their own business while the "sprout" churches mind theirs. So those who felt excluded in one part of Christendom could just steer clear, a bit like not reading an irritating thread on a discussion board.
My basic argument for retaining traditional language is quite different, and doesn't relate to the inclusion/exclusion idea. Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it. You don't have to agree with either me or my theology, but you could allow room for me and people like me to express it in the traditional way, whilst you pursue your own alternatives elsewhere. We don't have all have to feel the same way about it—that's one of the beauties of Christian freedom.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A couple of weekends ago my wife went to the Darling Harbour Convention Centre (Sydney CBD) for a conference of 3000 women, organised by female leaders within Sydney diocese, with women speakers addressing sessions of between 1000 and 3000 women.
Do those women speakers also address sessions of thousands of men?
quote:
The church I attend makes no concessions to inclusive language. There are 80 women in the main Wednesday women's Bible study, and all up a couple of hundred.
Why is there are women's bible study? Are women not allowed to go to mixed bible studies? Do the women have a different Bible or a different Gospel?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.
And, yes, as someone else said, there is a downside for men to the fact that "'man' embraces woman" but the downside for women is much greater. Because invisibility is a tool of the oppression. The fact that nice people don't mean to be oppressive is irrelevant.
I'd just like to associate myself with these rather sensible remarks...
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My basic argument for retaining traditional language is quite different, and doesn't relate to the inclusion/exclusion idea. Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.
Without wishing to be rude, could you please clarify which stream of conservative biblical theology you think this language is reflecting?
A number of people here have said it makes them feel like second-class citizens who can't play a full role in the life of the church. Are you saying that this is a reflection of what your theology teaches?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
I'm getting somewhat frustrated here. I - and others - have said that we do find this language excluding. That we do find it misleading. That it does impede our worship and our relationship with God...
.. Rather, we're arguing that some do feel excluded and that - as language moves on - these words are becoming more archaic, more misleading, and potentially more offensive.
When you say, speaking for yourself, that you do feel offended/excluded, then the right response seems IMVHO to be something along the lines of:
- we're sorry to hear that
- no offence/exclusion was intended
- insofar as it is compatible with the equally-valid views and concerns of other members of the congregation, we'll change the words to ones which convey to you and to everyone women's equal status in the Christian community.
But if you should go beyond the personal to the political, to say that women are right to feel offended/excluded, that by implication Gordon Cheng's wife, being a woman, should feel as you do, then you can hardly complain if he replies to the opposite effect, that perhaps you should feel as his wife does.
Mrs Cheng has exactly as much right to speak for women as you have - no more and no less.
Let none of us count you as one whit less than a person. But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? )) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.
Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?
RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.
But then, as I read it, spoiled it in the last line by suggesting that traditional language is objectively oppressive...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.
Are you actually saying that you think inclusive language is incompatible with conservative biblical theology, or are you rather saying that as the tradition of using KJV-lingo is historically though not theologically linked to the Reformation, you can't drop it without it feeling like a betrayal?
If the former, then you must be saying that you actually believe traditional language is meant to be exclusive, and this reflects the theology, which isn't what you seem to be saying. If the latter, then I hope you won't be offended if I find this incongruous coming from such a staunch supporter of Reformation principles, when you seem to be valuing what we've always done above what's right.
Posted by Light (# 4693) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?
What does this have to do with the rest of your post? It seems like a cheap shot at feminism to me and I sincerely hope that it wasn't Chesterton who said/wrote it.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Sounds just like Chesterton at his worst, I have to say.
Russ - this isn't about telling people what they should or should not feel. It's about analysing what is being said and, perhaps, moving on to understand why that makes some people feel excluded. What they do about those feelings and how they respond to them is for them to decide. For example, black people have reclaimed the word 'black' - and encouraged white people to use it where appropriate; some of them are (may be?) in the process of reclaiming the word 'N***er' - but for a white person to use this term (in most contexts) would still be abusive.
For another example: John Agard has written a brilliant poem called Half-Caste in which he says why he thinks it's the wrong word to use about someone of mixed race. He expresses his hurt. Fact is it's a racist term, and remains so regardless of the intentions of the person who uses it and whether or not their cousin/ sister/ brother/ uncle or aunt happens to be of mixed race and is/is not offended by it.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them.
There may be a reason that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of the book of Job to say that the daughters of Job inherited along with their brothers.
The principal of male inheritance may have been a cultural norm. But to call it a Biblical principle seems to be stretching things.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.
But then, as I pointed out above in a comment Gordon has not referred to, using the accurate biblical language no longer conveys the underlying biblical truth, because the word "son" no longer carries with it all the meaning of the society of Paul's time.
Saying "son" matters because of what Paul meant is meaningless -- "son" doesn't say that today, and those listening to it will not understand its significance.
John
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do those women speakers also address sessions of thousands of men?
No.
quote:
Why is there are women's bible study?
I'm not sure. Possibly the women feel they would like to meet together to study the Bible. Now as for these questions:
quote:
Are women not allowed to go to mixed bible studies? Do the women have a different Bible or a different Gospel?
they are quite the silliest questions I have been asked in a very long time. If you manage to answer them yourself on this thread and include reference to John Gray, Aero bars and a watermelon then I undertake to donate $20 AUD to the Addis Ababa fistula hospital founded by Dr Catherine Hamlin.
As for some of the other questions raised by others, I will need to go off and have a sleep and get back to you. Good night from Sydney, Australia!
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you should go beyond the personal to the political, to say that women are right to feel offended/excluded, that by implication Gordon Cheng's wife, being a woman, should feel as you do, then you can hardly complain if he replies to the opposite effect, that perhaps you should feel as his wife does.
Mrs Cheng has exactly as much right to speak for women as you have - no more and no less.
Let none of us count you as one whit less than a person. But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? )) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.
It's fortunate, then, that I haven't claimed to be the Voice of Women, nor have I at any point suggested to Ms. Cheng what she should or should not think. On the contrary, I have consistently said things like "Noone here is argueing that ... every woman will be bothered by it."
quote:
Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?
If he did, he was a prat.
quote:
RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.
If you reread my posts you'll see that so have I.
Peronel.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Do those women speakers also address sessions of thousands of men?
No.
quote:
Why is there are women's bible study?
I'm not sure.
Sounds like marginalisation to me. I think I rest my case.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
as I pointed out above in a comment Gordon has not referred to, using the accurate biblical language no longer conveys the underlying biblical truth, because the word "son" no longer carries with it all the meaning of the society of Paul's time.
If we want to use accurate Biblical language we can do it in Greek or Hebrew.
But as long as we translate into Rnglish (or even Latin) we need to translate into something that the hearers will understand.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
"son" doesn't say that today, and those listening to it will not understand its significance.
Exactly
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
My basic argument for retaining traditional language is quite different, and doesn't relate to the inclusion/exclusion idea. Traditional language reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology that I happen to think gives life and health to those who believe it.
Without wishing to be rude, could you please clarify which stream of conservative biblical theology you think this language is reflecting?
A number of people here have said it makes them feel like second-class citizens who can't play a full role in the life of the church. Are you saying that this is a reflection of what your theology teaches?
That's because such churches that deny the right of women to publically teach men anything theologically do believe women are second class citizens and can't play a full role in the life of the church, so any concern about the sensitivity of those who feel oppressed by such language is superfluous since it's just women whining about their God-given place in life.
It takes a particular brand of double-think to maintain that women aren't second-class citizens in such a situation when it is plain that the only job denied to men in such a system is motherhood, while women are excluded from any church position that involves teaching authority over men. Somehow the inequality of opportunity can be danced around. This is religion. Human rights and dignity have nothing to do with it.
Exclusive language in such a church is the lesser problem.
[ 09. June 2005, 16:27: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you try to come over as the vanguard of the revolution, the wave of the future, the Voice of Woman ((hear me roar ? ) the crusader against historic wrongs, or anything else, then please forgive anyone who gently points out that your feelings are those of one person.
Neither Peronel nor I has tried to speak for all women. Your reference to a 30-some-year-old pop song makes me think that you are not responding to the specific and nuanced arguments we are trying to make but instead to caricatures and half-baked representations of feminism presented by the popular media.
As I said before, not all women want the same thing at the same time. There are plenty of women in Gordon Cheng's church and in lots of other churches who want a more traditional theology and the traditional language in which that theology is expressed. Some of those women happily embrace a traditional notion of male headship. They may or may not be oppressed--I suspect some of them are, but would not claim that all of them are. Many of them find that their faith is nurtured by traditional theology, and that is of course the most important thing. As a comparison I would offer my attitude toward something like Grits' fundamentalist view of the Bible: I disagree with it, I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong--but it nourishes her faith, and I would never want it to be taken away from her.
quote:
Was it Chesterton who suggested that a feminist is someone who wants nothing to do with femininity ?
How incredibly insulting. I cannot tell you how angry this makes me.
quote:
RuthW - good liberal that she is - made it clear that she's not insisting that all congregations make changes because of her feelings.
But then, as I read it, spoiled it in the last line by suggesting that traditional language is objectively oppressive...
Please quote me accurately. I said that traditional language is sexist. Sexism is frequently but not automatically oppressive.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Ruth and Peronel, I would like to say thank you for keeping on fighting your corners. The corner is mine too, but I do not have the ability and knowledge to argue as you two do.
Please keep at it - I am cheering you on from the sidelines!
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Seconding Nicodemia's for Peronel and Ruth.
It's obvious that "heirs" rather than "sons" more accurately conveys the sense of "inheritance" to the 21st century listener/reader in the pew. So is Gordon's preference for "traditional language [that] reflects a particular stream of conservative biblical theology" more compelling than a clearer transmission of the meaning of the original text? Because the ONLY reason I can see to prefer "son" to "heir" in this instance is to preserve the implication of gender, and doing so comes at the cost of losing the original meaning. However, fairly specific gender roles are a part of this theology, and therefore the preservation of gender is an important consideration.
Now, Gordon and like-minded others, specifically including like-minded women, are of course perfectly free to do this, and I don't advocate forcing any language down anyone's throat. But one of the most common criticisms levelled at the inclusive language proponents is that we're sacrificing scripture on the altar of a particular brand of theology - but how is this any different?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
Except that it then totaly misses the theological point in that line and the scriptures behind it. Biblically, it was sons that inherited and that inheritance involves all that their father had made available to them. Thus, by being 'sons of God'-male and female-we inherit all contained in the promises of God. Being God's child sounds cuddly. Being God's son has real meaning nad power.
So when is God going to die and let me inherit the universe? The money lenders are getting troublesome again.
Serious point. Language can be both incredibly subtle and incredibly powerful. If someone tells me that the way I use language is offending them, then I need to think very hard about whether or not I want to offend them. If I do - fine, I'll go on using the same language. If I don't - and especially if I never intended to offend them in the first place - then I need to change the language that I use.
And, to revert to an earlier point, the idea that woman are free to preach to thousands of other women, but aren't allowed to preach to men, sounds incredibly patronising to me. If they are articulate, spiritual individuals, well able to expound the oracles of God, why can't they address whomever will listen to them?
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I said that traditional language is sexist. Sexism is frequently but not automatically oppressive.
La Trick wants to know if using Traditional Language in her personal and public devotions makes her sexist?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
The logical error you (and apparently she) have made is to slide from my condemnation of sexist language to the notion that an individual person using sexist language which is sanctioned and issued by the church is sexist. I've never met your wife, and she is not a poster on these boards, so I wouldn't presume to label her as sexist. I'll say only that she is using sexist language.
Qlib put it well, and ken quoted it, but it bears repeating:
quote:
But it isn't about what you as a perfectly pleasant individual say here: it's about what the Church community says in Church. It's about how women are represented (or not represented, or misrepresented) within the structure. Non-inclusive language is a form of marginalisation. Marginalisation is a form of oppression.
Individual women may or not feel marginalized or oppressed; they may or may not actually be marginalized or oppressed. What we are addressing is a structural issue, an ideology, which tends to promote the marginalization of women. This is not to say that throughout the centuries of male supremacy there were never any happy women, and likewise this is not to say that there are no happy, faithful women today whose faith is nurtured by the use of traditional language in their public and private devotions.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are plenty of women in Gordon Cheng's church and in lots of other churches who want a more traditional theology and the traditional language in which that theology is expressed.
Then there are women like me, who want a theology so conservative that it makes Gordon's look positively radical in comparison, but who want the traditional theology expressed with absolute faithfulness and accuracy.
Which means that the whole question of whether or not to use inclusive language is, for me, the wrong question. The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"
If it doesn't, we have a problem. And saying that our audience should understand what we mean doesn't fix the problem. It's my responsibility to say clearly what I mean. If what I've said doesn't communicate what I mean, I need to say it differently.
And it's clear that "for us men and for our salvation" doesn't communicate what we mean. It may have been an accurate translation at one time, but English has changed, and we need to change our translation. Having communicated accurately in the past isn't good enough. We need to communicate our faith accurately now. If someone rejects our faith, we want them to reject what it really is, based on a genuine understanding of what we believe. It's not fair to set people up so that they reject something that we really don't believe.
So we need to change this. Of course, given the way we do things in the Orthodox Church, it's not going to change overnight. I suspect we'll have to get the whole mess with overlapping ethnic jurisdictions ironed out before we can realistically address the need for a new, accurate translation.
But we should clearly acknowledge that it needs to be done, not only for the sake of the feelings of people who are offended by the existing English translations, but for the sake of the Truth.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Josephine
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Indeed! Although I'd say that the answer to this--
quote:
The question is, "does this particular usage faithfully communicate the meaning of what our predecessors in the faith were saying, does it accurately convey what we believe to the people who are hearing us?"
--leads to the conclusion that inclusive language is in fact necessary right now.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
John H has mentioned I didn't respond to this earlier point:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So for example, for quite a while I saw no problem and some advantage in paraphrasing Romans 8:14 as "all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God". The word for "children" is the Greek "huios", which means "sons". But there is a problem with my paraphrase, as it turns out, and as I later discovered on reflection. The point about our 'sonship' is that it is closely tied to the Old Testament background of sonship, whereby the firstborn son is the inheritor of the birthright and associated blessing. So it actually matters that men and women together are not simply "children" of God but "sons" of God, with all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright that this implies.
As a matter of theology and history, that's absolutely true. But a person reading it today will not gain that understanding, because "son" no longer conveys "all the associated blessing and inheritance birthright" it did when the passage was written. Even at the time of the Authorized Version, sonship didn't absolutely convey that meaning, since daughters (if without brothers) had specific inheritance rights that might be equivalent to those of sons.
This is a case where no modern word, or even any convenient phrase, comes anywhere close to conveying the full meaning of the Greek.
John
That's what Bible teachers are for. If Bible teachers are unnecessary, then Paul the Lord Jesus wouldn't have given them as gifts for building up the church:
quote:
Eph. 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph. 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
Eph. 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph. 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
The fact that hundreds of people can hear the concept explained, understand it well enough and treat it not as offensive, but as something of an "aha" experience, suggests to me that the basic underlying ideas and use of language are not particularly hard to comprehend; and that it's possible to hear this explanation and not be offended. Indeed that it's possible to be young and female, hear the explanation and actually be quite delighted at the idea of being called a "son of God".
In my experience a number of those who continue to take offence after the idea has been explained are either taking offence on behalf of others, or are offended by the underlying conservative biblical theology implied by the language.
[I've noted the questions asking me to clarify what that theology is and will answer as I have time.]
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
I've heard this many times and it does not "delight" me at all.
The concept of an adopted son inheriting his father's estate/kindgom is an analogy; it is not reality. It seems to me that the theologically correct view is not that "Women must be viewed as sons of God through the cross of Christ."; it is "Women and men, boys and girls all inherit the Kindgom through the cross of Christ".
Would men like to be symbolically emasculated by Christian theology? I honestly don't mind "I prefer traditional language and I honestly don't mean to offend women by that preference." I don't mind "Inclusive language is an interesting point of view but I disagree." I do mind "If only you really understood the theology behind this, you would delight in having God symbolically reassign your sex.[1]"
[1] Or whatever the equivilent of "emasculate" is when it's being done toward women.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Thank you, seeker, that's helped me clarify one of the reasons this language rubs me up the wrong way.
A couple of people have posted about feminism being about denying femininity. On the contrary. My femininess ... uhhh ... womanliness ... uhhh there's no good word ... whatever is an important part of who I am. I'm not a man. I'm a woman. And that's something I'm proud of.
In using phrases like the sons of God I'm in a bind. Either I have to defeminise myself to make myself into a son or, at best, a non-gender specific pseudo son, in order to be part of that group. Or I am outside that group, with the consequent implications for my salvation.
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men? One of the non-official gospels, I think.* That, it seems to me, is the import of attempting to define women as sons of God. It says that my femaleness isn't redeemable.
Peronel.
*it's late. Can't remember the word.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men?
It's not in my Bible. I wasn't even aware that we would have gender in heaven. We certainly won't marry or be given in marriage. Depending on how you look at it, we will all be the bride of Christ (Rev21); at one and the same time we will have attained to mature manhood in Christ (Eph 4). So we won't be having this discussion in heaven, you'll be pleased to know.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
No, not in the Bible. In one of the gospels that didn't quite make it, I think.
NOT argueing that that is authoritative of course. Just using it as an analogy. Possibly a bad one - it's been a long day and it's past midnight.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
it's possible to be young and female, hear the explanation and actually be quite delighted at the idea of being called a "son of God".
It's also possible to be young and female, read this translation, and heave the Bible across the room. Or just shrug and shelve it with all the other stuff that apparently doesn't apply to you.
Peronel: Non-canonical?
Questioning the femininity of feminists bugs the crap out of me. It smacks of the thinking that women who are feminists must be lesbians or extremely unattractive or something along those lines which defines women in terms of their relationships with and attractiveness to men.
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
What text is it that argues that when women get into heaven they will become men? One of the non-official gospels, I think.*
I think you mean the Gospel of Thomas, saying #114:
quote:
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Bingo.
That's what describing myself as a "son of god" does. Requires me to make myself male in order to be accepted.
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to understand. It certainly isn't. But redefining words creates barriers to communication.
A number of years ago, I was writing a booklet for newly diagnosed diabetics to take home with them. We discovered we had a problem with the word "diet" -- no matter how many times the diabetes educator explained that "diet" doesn't mean "eating less so that you can lose weight," there were always patients who had trouble wrapping their mind around that fact. During the class, they could tell the diabetes educator that "diet" just means "what you're supposed to eat," but later, when they'd reached their ideal weight, they would figure that since they didn't need to lose any more weight, they could go off their diet. And they ended up back in the hospital.
This didn't happen 100% of the time, of course. Or even 50% of the time. But it happened often enough that we quit using the word "diet" entirely, and used "meal plan" instead. Using the word "diet" made it harder to communicate critical information about their health to people who needed that information. We could communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
And I would submit that using the word "son" to refer to women makes it harder to communicate critical information about their salvation to people who need that information. We can communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon said:
quote:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
But why should the befuddlement exist at all? Why should one have to wait until attending a Bible class in one's late teens to have the befuddlement addressed? Why not use a word that conveys the original concept clearly and avoid the confusion altogether? It's looking to me like it's a choice between clarity and better sense of original meaning versus retaining outmoded usage.
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The problem isn't that it's impossible to understand. It certainly isn't. But redefining words creates barriers to communication. <snip> We could communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
And I would submit that using the word "son" to refer to women makes it harder to communicate critical information about their salvation to people who need that information. We can communicate more effectively by choosing a different word.
Josephine, you and others have put the argument that clarity of communication is a key issue, and I share that concern—but it is not my only concern.
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
But in so doing, we would have to insist that this process not simply be applied to communicating with feminists. Otherwise we would ourselves be guilty of the most condescending form of discrimination. We would be assuming that it really was only feminists who were limited enough in their understanding to require foreign concepts to be explained in terms they could understand and accept.
So rather, on this view, we must agree that all groups have some claim to have the language of the Bible rewritten on their terms. After all, the gospel of grace should be communicated not only to feminists but also to unreconstructed chauvinists, white supremacists, Buddhists, Swedes and lapsed vegans (to name but a few). Some might even suggest that chauvinists and white supremacists are more in need of hearing that they need to be forgiven, and giving their lives to Jesus Christ as Lord.
Therefore (on the argument of trying to mazimize clarity in communication) it follows that when I in my capacity as gospel preacher try to reach chauvinists, I should produce a Bible or preach a sermon that not only retains traditional language, but actually sharpens up some of the other edges as well so that there are now fewer references to God as being like a hen gathering chicks, or his servant Paul being like a mother with children, or any of those other kinder gentler references that may suggest femininity to some chauvinists. Now we know these references don’t offend most people (myself included), but there are bound to be some chauvinists I’m trying to reach who think religion is just for children and women. and anything I can do to toughen up the message without actually changing it is good—isn’t it? At least when I'm speaking to them. In other circumstances, I would keep the chauvinist Bible well hidden and whip out the feminist Bible to suit the new situation.
If you think, however, that chauvinising the language of the Bible in this way actually alters the basic message, you can probably sympathise with those who hold the view that a shift in language that goes the other way also alters the message.
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
Sienna, I didn’t mean to suggest a malicious playfulness. I’d compare it to the old chestnut about the father who brings his son into the hospital with acute appendicitis—the child is rushed into emergency, the surgeon stands ready to operate, then suddenly announces “I can’t go on: this is my son”. Those who know the punchline to this riddle enjoy the confusion it engenders in those who don’t, but the real enjoyment comes in sharing the meaning. And, although disguised as a riddle, there is a serious point underlying; just as there is with the woman who announces “I’m a Son of God”.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
From Gordon:
quote:
Josephine, you and others have put the argument that clarity of communication is a key issue, and I share that concern—but it is not my only concern.
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
I don't understand your equating of "clarity" and "lack of giving offense" - they aren't at all the same thing. "Clarity" means easily understood by the audience, whereas "lack of offense" means palatable to the audience. If something has clarity, it is conveying its intended meaning in a simple, direct way. A change for the sake of clarity is not the same as the excision of offensive language. Some of the most offensive things I've ever heard or read were very, very clear.
The simple fact is, "heir" in this day and age conveys the concept of "inheritance" far better than "son" does, and does so without need to resort to classes or commentaries. Since you yourself have stated the verse applies equally to men and women, why not use a word that conveys the intended meaning in the simplest, most direct manner?
It's the insistence on retaining male-gendered language that no longer carries the meaning it had when the text was written, when there is neutral language that does a better job of conveying the original meaning of the Scripture, that I'm finding hard to understand. Is the gender of a noun more important than its accuracy and faithfulness to the original concept?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language?
I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking how you would convey this?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I don't understand your equating of "clarity" and "lack of giving offense" - they aren't at all the same thing. "Clarity" means easily understood by the audience, whereas "lack of offense" means palatable to the audience.
Surely not unrelated, though, are they? We've seen examples on this thread of how people will assume that traditional language means that those who use it think women are inferior or somehow excluded from salvation or being in the image of God.
At any rate I think the argument in my second-to-last post is unaffected if we replace the word "clarity" with the words "removal of offense".
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on
:
quote:
Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?
Utterly unrelated actually, as Sienna cogently demonstrated.
quote:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language? I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking how you would convey this?
Some scholars might say that the only way to convey this would be to twist the clear intention of Scripture.
[fixed code]
[ 10. June 2005, 03:23: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Gordon Cheng wrote: Surely not unrelated, though, are they?
Utterly unrelated actually, as Sienna cogently demonstrated.
Er no. People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
quote:
Some scholars might say that the only way to convey this would be to twist the clear intention of Scripture.
Hardly the point though is it? We are then not debating about whether the words are offensive or unclear. We are debating about the underlying meaning that they are trying to convey.
I am trying to convey that men are given authority to rule their households. You disagree, but you understand my meaning. The question I posed to Sienna stands.
[fixed code]
[ 10. June 2005, 14:17: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon, I don't think there is a way to express that particular belief in a way that won't offend some people. That doesn't mean you shouldn't express your belief any more than it means all views expressed by Christians should avoid giving offense at all costs, and I have yet to hear anyone advocate this. In fact, I think Christians are often called to speak in ways that will give offense - you know, the whole prophetic "speak the truth to power" tradition.
But no one, anywhere on this thread, has suggested that we completely eliminate gender as a concept when it's clear from the context that one gender or the other is meant. What we're saying is that when a phrase means both men and women, the language should reflect both men and women, not one gender standing for itself and the subsumed representation of the other - particularly when it's always the same gender doing the representing.
But here's the thing - we've had many, many women tell us over the course of this thread and in real life that they find much of the language used exclusive and distancing (I don't happen to be one of them, but that's not what's important).
You and others have gone to great lengths to explain that this feeling isn't valid, because much of the language they object to does, in fact, include and incorporate women. The proper remedy, it is suggested, is that these people start to perceive things in the "way they are meant." The response has been that it has this distancing effect anyway.
If "man" "mankind" or "men" in these instances includes women, as you and others have flatly stated, then using gender-inclusive language shouldn't be a problem, because it doesn't alter the meaning. In fact, as the son/heir discussion illustrates, such a choice of language may better express the meaning in a way that is independent of gender.
It's the insistence on retaining the male gender in cases where you have stated that it means both men and women that I don't understand. WHY is "men" always the preferred term rather than "people" or "humanity" when we're talking about men and women?
If you're maintaining that "humanity" does not mean the same thing as "men (incorporating women)," and moving to that would change the meaning, then you're obviously finding a gender component in "mankind" that you're heretofore said isn't there.
I really think St. Paul's comments about eating meat from pagan sacrifices are instructive here. If language is causing pain, distance and is a stumbling block to others, why should we not change it when the original meaning can be preserved and in some cases, restored?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I really think St. Paul's comments about eating meat from pagan sacrifices are instructive here. If language is causing pain, distance and is a stumbling block to others, why should we not change it when the original meaning can be preserved and in some cases, restored?
Interesting! I'm writing a sermon on this very passage right now—typing with my left hand while I type to you with my right!
quote:
You and others have gone to great lengths to explain that this feeling isn't valid, because much of the language they object to does, in fact, include and incorporate women.
Actually, if I believed what feminists believed, then I would indeed be offended, because, as you say
quote:
I don't think there is a way to express that particular belief in a way that won't offend some people.
Exactly. The heart of the matter is, we really do think different things on some of these matters. Our language reflects this. We understand it, and we don't like what we hear.
I imagine that if I modified my language as suggested, people would still cotton on to the fact that we disagreed— it would just take a few nanoseconds longer (I'm allowing here for the superior intelligence of the average Shipmate:)).
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon said:
quote:
People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
And you've been told several times that the explanations do not adequately address the problem for a lot of these people. So, should we keep repeating the unhelpful explanation over and over until their eyes glaze over, just write them off as willful or slow, or try something else?
You still haven't answered my question regarding why, when "men" means "men and women," "humanity" isn't a valid substitute.
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
And no, Gordon, I don't think we're going to eliminate Christian disagreements this side of Heaven. But I think we're supposed to try, and I think we're supposed to be generous with one another over non-essentials. I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
You still haven't answered my question regarding why, when "men" means "men and women," "humanity" isn't a valid substitute.
Like the Abraham/Sarah discussion earlier, I can't see a great problem with this one substitution. But it really depends on the reason why it is done.
quote:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
quote:
But I think we're supposed to try, and I think we're supposed to be generous with one another over non-essentials. I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
I like the idea of generosity! But I am uncomfortable with the idea of any matter addressed by God being classed by us as "nonessential". It may not be a salvation issue, but it may nonetheless turn out to be quite important. It clearly is for some, or this thread wouldn't have been started. So I think a lot of others discussing the matter here would not agree that it is "nonessential".
Or is it your view that the Bible itself sees gender differences as a matter of little importance?
Posted by Avalon (# 8094) on
:
I realise that this thanks should best have been done as a PM rather than appearing on this thread as a tangent but there were too many people. I'm going to miss many people whose words warmed my heart by naming the ones whose names seem to appear most often on a quick run backwards as it is. So thank you Sienna, Peronal, Ruth W, Seeker963, Nicodemia, Ken, Qlib, Charles Read, Sine Nomine because words do have a strange power much the way physical applause supposedly raises dead fairies. If you can raise a few wing flutters in this heart I hope you can revive more hearts with more strength by your fidelity and persistance with words here. Thank you and to those whose names I missed.
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Gordon said:
quote:
Now I've seen competent bible teachers explain the "Son of God" idea to hundreds of students in their late teens and early twenties. I think you'd agree that it's not an insignificant point to have grasped hold of—that men and women together are inalienable heirs to a glorious inheritance through the work of Jesus Christ our Lord on the cross. It's also not that hard to comprehend. You've understood it. I've understood it. The students I've seen it explained to have rather delighted in the befuddlement caused by claiming to their not-yet-informed peers that they (whether male or female) are "sons of God", and have had no difficulty in explaining what they mean.
But why should the befuddlement exist at all? Why should one have to wait until attending a Bible class in one's late teens to have the befuddlement addressed? Why not use a word that conveys the original concept clearly and avoid the confusion altogether? It's looking to me like it's a choice between clarity and better sense of original meaning versus retaining outmoded usage.
By the way, the prospect of Christians delighting in their superior knowledge and the befuddlement of their less informed peers isn't a concept I find particularly appealing, for reasons having nothing to do with gender.
It isn't a case of superior knowledge and neither is it a case of some mystery that one has to wait for a special class in one's late teens for. I don't think that was Gordon's point at all. I think what he meant was that it is a straightforward concept widely taught and not complex to understand. I wonder if this does however highlight part of the 'fault line' around which this debate centres. Does it tend to be Christians from churches where issues like inheritance, our rights and authority as belivers and all that implies (and i'm sure there's a word to sum up that overall theology but I can't think what it is!)is not emphaisied that also have a problem with 'sons' and similar language because without that wider framework it is just then a debate about words? I'm not suggesting that with any kind of superior overtones, just obseving a possible pattern.
The problem with going over to phrases like 'heirs of God' or 'child of God' is that part of the reason we are sons of God is that we are one body with the Son of God. It is through Him that we devive our inheritance and so to change the language actually then begins to confuse our understanding of the whole basis for our standing. We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
Another great huge gulf between us: I don't see God as having been that directive about the language used in the Bible. I think people used the language they knew.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
I think you're misunderstanding my use of the term "non-essentials," particularly if you think I've said that gender is somehow unimportant. Let me try to explain and answer your questions at the same time.
First, I don't agree with you that the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original texts translated as the inclusive "men" carry the ever-present concept of subordination of women to men (big surprise), but I glad to have confirmed that this is your view, as it was the only explanation I could come up with for your objection to terms like "humanity," but didn't want to make any assumptions.
Under this view, then, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" would mean "Christ came to save all men and all women (who, we must remember, are subordinate but equal to men)" whereas the phrase "Christ came to save all humanity" would mean only "Christ came to save all men and women," thus leaving out important information.
Under this interpretation, gender subordination (not gender difference - an important distinction) becomes of such overwhelming importance that it must be ever-present, in every discussion about human relations with God. The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Under my interpretation, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" means "Christ came to save all men and women" means "Christ came to save humanity." There is no need to consider any theology of gender, liberal, convervative, or in-between. Accordingly, as gender information is a "non-essential" in this instance, I'm happy to replace the phrase "men" with "men and women" or "humanity" - because the meaning is the same, and the replacement will remove an impediment to those who are struggling.
Finally:
quote:
I said:
quote:
I suppose the real difference is that I don't see using "men" as the default word for "humanity" as an essential.
You replied:
I like the idea of generosity! But I am uncomfortable with the idea of any matter addressed by God being classed by us as "nonessential".
Where did God say that "men (including women)" or "mankind" is the term that must be used when referring to humanity?
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
Another great huge gulf between us: I don't see God as having been that directive about the language used in the Bible. I think people used the language they knew.
And that might be why its so difficult to find common ground on this issue-because many of those involved are coming from wider different starting points. In some ways it isn't a debate about inclusive language. Its a debate about the type of inspiration and continued validity of the original scriptures.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
TUC said:
quote:
The problem with going over to phrases like 'heirs of God' or 'child of God' is that part of the reason we are sons of God is that we are one body with the Son of God. It is through Him that we devive our inheritance and so to change the language actually then begins to confuse our understanding of the whole basis for our standing. We have to be really careful not to try and be cleverer than God in sorting out the language issue. He really did know what He was doing in the language He caused to used in the verses in question.
2 questions:
1. Are you really suggesting that by the substitution of "heir" for "son" we're in danger of either forgetting Jesus as the agent of our salvation, or forgetting that he incarnated as the male Son of God, or forgetting that He exists at all?
and
2. Why should we run the risk of translating scripture at all?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Sienna asked: quote:
2. Why should we run the risk of translating scripture at all?
Interesting point. Perhaps as is the ideal in Islam of reading the original Arabic, we should all be required to learn to read the original Hebrew and Greek in order to be proper Christians.
[ 10. June 2005, 06:15: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Er no. People have gathered something from the use of traditional language that was not meant. Therefore there is a clarity issue that needs to be dealt with. Some deal with it by changing the language, I deal with it by explaining it.
Gordon, I don't want some man patronising me and explaining what the text really means. I want to read it and feel I belong to this group, that the Gospel is for ME. in my own right, not as a second clas person.
Sorry, I know Gordon posted this ages ago, but you Australians and Americans post so much before we in the UK get up!!!
Now I'll get breakfast and come back to the rest of the thread afterwards!
Oh, and to Peronel
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Some people here seem to think that inclusive language is a (post)modern issue raised first a few decades ago by feminism. Well, not so. As usual in matters of religion, before the "enlightenment" took hold things were in better shape:
quote:
From "Inclusive Language in the Liturgy: Historical Perspectives":
It is clear that gender-balanced language has been used in Latin and vernacular liturgical prayers since the fifth century, though it was used less frequently than generic masculine language. One unanswerable question is why our ancestors in the faith sometimes used one construction instead of the other. A question to which at least a partial answer can be given is why inclusive language seems to have been used less frequently as the centuries passed. It is clear that there was a substantial decrease in the use of gender-balanced language during the Tridentine period (1570-1970) compared to the medieval era. One reason is that the vernacular general intercessions were deleted from the liturgy at that time, and they were a significant occasion for the use of inclusive language. A second reason is that liturgical texts from Italy were used as models for the Tridentine liturgical books, and these had never used as much inclusive language as those from farther north.
As usual my conclusion is: bring back the dark ages...
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
I think this is the heart of the disagreement.
My position: I don't like the use of "men" in today's liturgy" because it implies that men are the 'default sex', made in God's image, and women are merely a subset of that; that women are subordinate to men; that women are inferior in authority and in redemption to men. I think this is a distortion of the Gospel caused by the evolution of language and thus, if we wish to communicate clearly, we need to rethink our language.
Your position: women ARE subordinate in authority to men. That IS part of the gospel. Updating language to "men and women" or "people" when the Bible uses "men" is thus distorting God's revealed truth about the relative roles of the sexes.
That's slightly exagerated, but is it roughly in the right ball-park?
If so, then the problem isn't language. Its theology. Those of us who have been argueing that the use of man is gendered and discriminating have been right all along. Your use of "for us men and our salvation" is intended to convey a subtext of female subordination. At its extreme, that is a message of oppression.
Now you're entitled to that belief, I suppose, even if I think it is fucked up. But to try and argue that women are "subordinate in authority" and at the same time to argue that women who interpret your language as oppressive are mishearing and in need of education is logically nonsensical. Your language IS oppressive, because it is intended to convey that women should be subordinate in authority to their husbands. The fact that some are happy with that makes it no less discriminating.
Lyda Rose had it right on the previous page:
quote:
any concern about the sensitivity of those who feel oppressed by such language is superfluous since it's just women whining about their God-given place in life.
Bluntly, I suspect that you're doing a great disservice to some of the girls (and boys) who are growing up to believe that God appointed men to be in authority over them. I hope, in the future, a few of them stumble on the Ship or something like it and learn it is possible to be Christian without believing that God says men are superior in authority.
Peronel.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
First, I don't agree with you that the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original texts translated as the inclusive "men" carry the ever-present concept of subordination of women to men (big surprise),
Better I think to say that I believe the idea is usually not absent, but sometimes present. Finicky I know.
quote:
Under this view, then, the phrase "Christ came to save all men" would mean "Christ came to save all men and all women (who, we must remember, are subordinate but equal to men)" whereas the phrase "Christ came to save all humanity" would mean only "Christ came to save all men and women," thus leaving out important information.
A bit too binary for me. Again, the idea may or may not be present, but it is not excluded.
quote:
Under this interpretation, gender subordination (not gender difference - an important distinction) becomes of such overwhelming importance that it must be ever-present, in every discussion about human relations with God.
Ah. Here the reason for my pernickety little nuances. I would reword this as
"gender subordination becomes of importance, in a way that it is often present in discussions about human relations with God, and ought never to be excluded"
quote:
The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Yes, me too. Most of my conversations don't consciously do this.
quote:
Where did God say that "men (including women)" or "mankind" is the term that must be used when referring to humanity?
As far as I know he didn't.
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought". That's why I would want to preserve the freedom for others to speak differently to the way that I do, whilst guarding my own freedom to speak differently to the way that they do.
IngoB, a useful historical perspective, although as always I will want to argue the pre-eminence of the biblical component of the tradition. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear that inclusive language is used to a greater or lesser extent at various points in church history. I am rather a fan of the Dark Ages too. I observe that within certain contemporary strands of Western feminism, the demand for inclusive language is rather more pronounced than it seems to have been in ages past.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
"gender subordination becomes of importance, in a way that it is often present in discussions about human relations with God, and ought never to be excluded"
So gender subordination is SO important that we should include it in all our thinking about how we relate to God? I'm not sure I can explain my reaction to that statement adequately when not in Hell, but I don't think you and I are living on the same planet GC.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I don't think you and I are living on the same planet GC.
Thank you for that! Agreed.
It seems to me that Gordon Cheng, ironically, is providing a shining example of why inclusive language is important.
Some church leaders, it seems, use phrases like "for us men..." to deliberately convey a message of female subordination. Thus, if you do not wish to convey that message (and I assume that most posting on this thread do not) then it behooves you to avoid that language. Because, if you do not, how are your listeners meant to know if what you're really saying is "men and women, equal in authority and in the sight of God" or "men and subordinate women"?
Peronel.
[ 10. June 2005, 07:17: Message edited by: Peronel ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But if I believe that God in Scripture gives authority to men to rule in their households, how would you convey this in inoffensive gender-neutral language?
Obviously you can't. Because the reason non-inclusive language is offensive is because it conveys a variety of hidden messages, one of which you’ve just made explicit. Ultimately it’s the message that’s offensive, not the language. I find the idea that God gave men authority over their households supremely offensive. It offends me as a woman and a mother, it offends me as a human being, and it offends me spiritually, as it conveys a view of God that I find, quite frankly, blasphemous.
And I’m happy that we agree to differ on this point, but what I don’t understand, Gordon, is why you then come on to this thread and argue that you’re a nice liberal person who respects women and we should accept your view that the language is not offensive. You don’t find it offensive because it fits your world view. We find it offensive for the same reason.
And, of course, talk of a ‘feminist’ (or 'chauvinist') Bible is patronising nonsense. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some passages in the Bible will reflect the patriarchal times when they were written, but there is a problem when the ‘translation’ uses sexist, non-inclusive language that does not faithfully reflect the original text.
P.S. Why do so many people think the Gospel of Thomas is wonderful? Doesn’t this:
quote:
"Look, I will guide her..”
make Jesus sound just like Tony Blair?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Sienna said:
quote:
The idea that even the most basic conversation about God and humanity must also establish the proper relationship of authority between genders is one I find lacking in perspective.
Yes, me too. Most of my conversations don't consciously do this.
Well, of course. Let non-inclusive language do it on its own. Making sure that non-inclusive forms are used at every opportunity can allow the subordination of women to be continuously pointed out without the tedious necessity of doing it consciously.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Qlib, I hate it when people say what I tried to, but clearer
And yeah on Jesus/Tony Blair. Actually there's a resemblance in some of the cheesier christian art, too. Neither of them ever stop smiling.
Peronel.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
Your position: women ARE subordinate in authority to men. That IS part of the gospel. Updating language to "men and women" or "people" when the Bible uses "men" is thus distorting God's revealed truth about the relative roles of the sexes.
That's slightly exagerated, but is it roughly in the right ball-park?
It's essentially on the mark, except for the statement you made that "That IS part of the gospel".
Gender relationships are not a gospel issue; or more accurately, they are not part of the gospel until someone insists that they are. I am certainly not insisting that they are, but others who take up an opposing view may possibly be. I won't put words into their mouths, however.
Anyway, as my interest in this has to do with clarity in language and the freedom to express what we think with clarity (and, where possible, with grace), the acknowledgement of genuine disagreement is an important step. I would rather not be the one to say that it's a gospel issue, as I generally consider such things to centre around the divinity and humanity of Christ, his death as a substitute for our sins, his bodily resurrection, and the glorious hope of coming judgment and salvation.
Thanks for the discussion, and perhaps we've gone as far as we can reasonably be expected to at this time? I'm not sure I have much to add, anyway.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Re. 'son / child' of God language - we discussed this at length a few pages back and I seem to recall we decided I was right. (I might have misremembered that, but I'm sure did).
As for Father God being a passe song and not used much, well call me a fuddy duddy but I go to places where we still sing it from time to time - always inclusivised.
More recent compositions using exclusive language would include How Deep the Father's love for us.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. 'son / child' of God language - we discussed this at length a few pages back and I seem to recall we decided I was right. (I might have misremembered that, but I'm sure did).
That's odd, I can't recall that... perhaps you could give a link to where the decision was taken?
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".
Are you sure you haven't bought into the concept of an infallible English translation because of your liking for the theology?
If, as you say, the Bible contains considerable support for the notion of female subordination, then it should not be necessary for you to make use of a mistranslation in order to ram that point home. If "sons of..." in context was used by the author to mean "heirs of..." or "children of..." rather than "male offspring of..." then in persisting in the use of "sons of..." in English, you are possibly guilty of using a corrupt text to further your own interpretation and I consider this a pretty dangerous position to be in, for someone claiming a sola scriptura theology.
If the Reformation taught us, Catholic and Protestant, anything in the West, isn't it that though Tradition doesn't change the expression of that Tradition must always adapt to speak clearly to the people of the time? Thus conducting everything in Latin when no-one spoke it was a Bad Thing (my arguments for Latin on another thread are for the common parts of liturgy that a small child could learn in a week, not general use) and so on. I think you're potentially making a similar mistake with C16 English.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I am trying to capture in my language a biblical emphasis and perspective, without turning the biblical "is" into a linguistic "ought".
Are you sure you haven't bought into the concept of an infallible English translation because of your liking for the theology?
hi GF
I was attempting to base my argument on the Greek and Hebrew, at least in my own mind, even though I'm posting in English. I'm not an expert but I'm trying to reflect what I do know of the original languages.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If it were simply and only a matter of clarity, each one of us would have licence to go through the Bible and delete or denature any analogy or form of words that we personally found offensive, or that was offensive to the particular group of people we were interested in reaching.
It's not about "denaturing an analogy". The analogy is destroyed when it is turned into a reality. You seem to be saying "It's not that God treats us like the adopted son of a Roman citizen who gets to inherit the estate even though he was not born into the family. It's actually the reality that we must all become adopted sons of God (and women must give up what makes them essentially female)."
There is nothing wrong with creating a new analogy and noting that, since women can inherit in our culture but could not inherit in the first century culture, that God treats us all like adopted inheriting sons and daughters. I'm not suggesting changing the biblical text, but I not only think that it's perfectly OK to change the analogy for sermons and hymns, but I'd go further and insist that saying it's not OK turns the analogy into an actuality.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship. Which is why I would support retention of the traditional usage, and others would vehemently oppose it.
Interesting. This is somewhere where you and the strongly pro-inclusive language people* agree (as Peronel and Qlib have commented) and I disagree. You both see a gender-bias in the non-inclusive language whereas I would say that when `man' is used inclusively it says nothing about the gender images, it's just that English has confused itself by using the generic species term (or the Anglo-Saxon one at least) for the male of the species.** As Metapelagius asked many pages ago, whatever happened to wer as the term for a male man?***
On the son/heir discussion, I feel the need to point out that heir is in fact a masculine term. Or at least it was until very recently. I also think that The Undiscovered Country's point that it loses the relational aspect (one's heir could be a second cousing twice removed or indeed someone one has chosen) conveyed by son is a good one, but I quite agree with those who say that we shouldn't have to deny our femaleness in order to be saved which leads me to say (as someone else has done) that there is no very good word in Modern English. I think this is why I am happy to live with a mixture of traditional and inclusive language. Things written today should reflect today's idiom and the fact that man/men have lost most of their generic sense means that we should avoid them. I remain to be convince that we have to meddle with the words of older hymns.
*Sorry that's rather convoluted but I had to attempt to find a phrase that didn't imply things about my position that are not entirely true. I thought feminist, but I am a feminist, I'm just not hugely bothered about inclusive language in every apsect.
** Interestingly, looking at species terms and gender more generally there are examples where the default is the female. For example, a male goose is a gander and a female goose a goose, but geese implies both. Similarly ducks and drakes. But then there are lions and lionesses. Others have a species term and then two different words for the male and female: swans, pen, cob; sheep, ewe, ram.
***The fact that sounds so ridiculous convinces me than man is more predominantly male in its connotations today than goose is female.
Carys
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Things written today should reflect today's idiom and the fact that man/men have lost most of their generic sense means that we should avoid them. I remain to be convince that we have to meddle with the words of older hymns.
This I would agree with absolutely.
Posted by Pob (# 8009) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I... think that it's perfectly OK to change the analogy for sermons and hymns.
And even sometimes in scripture. I remember reading some time ago about missionaries to a tribe of Amazonians. When the missionaries - part of whose brief was to translate the bible into these people's language - gave them their first taste of bread, it made them violently sick.
So when the missionaries came to translate the words of Jesus, 'I am the bread of life,' this gave them a huge problem. Did they translate faithfully, thus communicating to the Amazonians that Jesus is spiritually indigestible, or change the text to create an analogy that they would understand?
In the same way, if there are women who can't digest the idea of having to 'become sons' or of being included in the group 'men' (in much the same way that I couldn't begin to relate to being a 'daughter of God' or to being included in the group 'women'), is it more faithful to the gospel to alienate them and then blame them for not understanding language in the same way you do, or to find a way of articulating the same truths that includes them fully and equally?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
So when the missionaries came to translate the words of Jesus, 'I am the bread of life,' this gave them a huge problem. Did they translate faithfully, thus communicating to the Amazonians that Jesus is spiritually indigestible, or change the text to create an analogy that they would understand?
And what about those poor saps with ciliac's disease, who can only eat gluten-free? How could they possibly relate to this image? Is Jesus trying to poison them?
Or should we perhaps allow that it's possible to understand and empathise with the experience of those who are unlike us, and allow that even Amazonians are capable of doing this?
Posted by Pob (# 8009) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Or should we perhaps allow that it's possible to understand and empathise with the experience of those who are unlike us, and allow that even Amazonians are capable of doing this?
Well, of course it is... but such empathy and understanding is rarely complete (none of us really knows what it's like to be someone else), and the further the leap of empathy needed, the greater the likelihood of misunderstanding.
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
No, this is quite right and I'm sorry for my sarcasm. But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant. Which helped them understand the Bible without needing the analogy translated for them—Israelites eating Arnott's SAOs and so on and so forth...
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
But people with Coeliac's disease live in a society where the understanding of bread as the 'staff of life' is well-established. Nobody's saying that an Amazonian wouldn't be capable of understanding the concept but the phrase simply wouldn't strike them in the same way. Language works on more than just the literal level. One of your problems on this thread is that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that.
But actually, I don’t think you do really have a problem with understanding – you are just very disingenuous. Your favourite tactic against liberals is to turn find ways of accusing them of being illiberal. So when you imply that someone who wants to translate the word ‘bread’ into something that relates more directly to the lives of Amazonian Indians is being patronising, that’s just a new card to play in the game, isn’t it?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
The point of phrases like "bread of life", it seems to me, is that they hit home on an emotional level.
Christ could have said "I am here to nourish you" or "I am here to self-sacrificially provide those resources which you lack." The meaning is sort of equivalent, but all the emotive power has gone. Words are powerful precisely because they can convey meaning beyond the raw text, by triggering connections with the hearer's experiences and memories. Bread conveys warm, wholesomeness and savour which the more prosaic words - no matter how they're explained - simply do not.
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
But all this, it seems to me, is irrelevant. You've already said you want to convey a gendered message that places women in a submissive role. So sons is probably pretty accurate for you. It is, after all, sons who aren't the inheritors, and aren't the daughters lucky that God is able to overlook their girlishness and let them, too, into the Kingdom.
You can't have it both ways. You simply can't. If you want the undertones of your language to convey a message that places women below men then so be it. I think you're wrong, but I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise. But stop argueing that women shouldn't be offended, or are only offended because they haven't been properly taught.
After all, in your eyes, the only education that would work is - one assumes - that which teaches women they should submit to male authority, and thus allows them to hear this language in that light.
Peronel.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
. Language works on more than just the literal level. One of your problems on this thread is that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that.
no I agree with you on this. That's why I don't like tinkering with translation, and that's why we need teachers and ongoing discussion about meaning.
quote:
But actually, I don’t think you do really have a problem with understanding – you are just very disingenuous. Your favourite tactic against liberals is to turn find ways of accusing them of being illiberal.
Who knows? You may be right about my motives, and the bible would say worse about me. That says very little about the truth of the point.
[Sorry, Coeliac's not ciliac's—a dyslexic moment on my part]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant.
So, we don’t actually need to translate the Bible from the original languages, because the Lord Jesus will provide people who can tell us all about it and explain it all for us?
I think you are, quite deliberately, confusing two things. Some phrases and expressions in the Bible will, inevitably, require specialist knowledge to make them explicable – ‘unleavened bread’ being a minor example of this. But other parts simply need translating into the correct idiom.
Therefore, when translating the phrase “unleavened bread” into the language of Pob’s Amazonian friends, it would be right to translate it literally. However, when translating the statement “I am the bread of life”, it would be wrong to translate it literally as ‘bread’ because it’s a metaphor, and Jesus did not (presumably) intend the metaphor to convey the message: "I am that foreign muck that makes you all sick."
[ 10. June 2005, 10:47: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Although I am grateful to the shipmate who has pointed out to my by PM that, given the impact of the arrival of 'Christian civilzation' upon the Amazonian tribes, "I am that foregin muck that makes you all sick" may have been exactly what he did mean.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I think you are, quite deliberately, confusing two things. Some phrases and expressions in the Bible will, inevitably, require specialist knowledge to make them explicable – ‘unleavened bread’ being a minor example of this. But other parts simply need translating into the correct idiom.
You're going to have to explain this to me Qlib, and assume as you go that my language skills are quite limited.
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable?
I don't get that. Why not a simple: "I'm sorry—normally when we feed people bread they don't throw up" followed by business as usual.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
Perhaps this will help.
There is - I believe - a tribe that lives somewhere in australia that eats ants.* The ants store sugar and water in their swollen bodies, so are sweet, succulent, nourishing and refreshing. But eating the sugar inevitably kills the ants.
This is, it seems, a good analogy for Christ. His blood is a sweet fluid on which we feed and are refreshed. Unlike the ants, he willingly sacrifices himself for us.
Yet, even though intellectually the analogy holds, somehow talking about Christ as the turgid ant-belly of life just doesn't work for me.
Does it for you?
Again, though, all this is only relevant if you think that the subtext of women being inferior is an unwanted side-effect of using phrases like "sons of God". If you believe that women should be submissive to men and shouldn't teach or lead men, then "sons" is exactly the word you're looking for. After all, it conveys your masculine supremacy nicely.
You still haven't explained this dichotomy. Women, you've said, cannot lecture to groups of men. How is it, then, that women teachers are not - as you claim - marginalised?
Peronel
*this is from daytime tv, so the details may be wrong. THe analogy still holds.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable?
Qlib is quite capable of explaining for herself, but I assume the distinction is this.
When christ referred to himself as the "bread of heaven" he presumably didn't mean he was round, contained water, salt and ground barley, and had been baked at 220 degrees for forty minutes.
Rather, he was using a metaphor. The image of bread served to communicate something of how we are nourished by Christ.
THe analogy only works if bread means "nourishment" to you. For these people - as for you and I with the ants in my post above - it didn't. You can explain that most people eat bread as much as you like but the most you can hope for is intellectual assent.
Which, it seems to me, is a pretty poor way to try and communicate the gospel.
In the same way you can say until you're blue in the face that women really are sons too but many women simply won't buy it on anything other than an intellectual level. And intellectual understanding doesn't bring people to faith; it certainly doesn't change lives.
Small enough words?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
Hmm... Peronel, we seem to have large areas of overlap in our understanding about the function of language. I certainly don't believe that you shouldn't be offended by my views, no matter how much I explain them. Indeed, assuming that you assume what you've said you assume, the more I explain what I think, the more offended you'll get! Not that I want this, but it seems quite likely .
However I have a question for you about the paragraph I snipped here—is it your view, based on what you said, that women can't understand men?
Consequently, when Paul says
quote:
1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.
do you think "Paul you are lying like a rug, you don't understand and you never could"?
And do you subsequently think "However I, being a woman, do understand, and if Paul understood what he was actually saying, it's quite a nice analogy"?
Do you then subsequently subsequently think "Gosh, it's a pity no man who reads this could ever really 'get' it, being ontologically incapable of comprehension of the 'nursing mother' experience"?
Or, alternatively, do you possibly think "hmm, nice image, I think a lot of people could relate to that."
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Gordon, you didn't really answer this the last time, which is understandable considering the level of flak you're copping here.
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Do your objections to it stem from a belief that when "men" is used to mean "men and women," it somehow carries with it the inference that God's ordained order involves women having equal value but being subordinate to men, hence the male-gendered word should always be used?
Almost. There may be no such inference in any particular given instance where "man" is used to include "woman". But where "man" is used inclusively (in the Greek and Hebrew equivalents), it is an ever present reminder that the woman is subordinate in authority to the man, and serves a different function within an otherwise equal relationship.
I would half-agree here. That the Greeks and Hebrews used the masculine plural to describe a mixed-gender group reflects that their societies had decided that women were subordinate. It is not evident, however, that when the Biblical writers use the masculine plural as inclusive that they are necessarily buying into that decision or that God, speaking through them, is conveying that decision is valid. They may simply be using the grammatical rules available to them, without regard to the historical origins of the rules. In other words, when one sees "men" in scripture being used to convey "men and women," one may be looking at a mere human artifact of the language, not a connotation that the Biblical writer or God meant to convey.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author
Hi GF, sorry for not answering earlier, and pretty soon I'm going to go off and watch the teev with my wife, which will make me even less communicative.
Yes, I think the translation is accurate. However
quote:
the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
In Romans 8:14? (where I took the SoG eg from)
No, I wouldn't say that Paul was saying anything at all about the "subordination of women in the divine purpose" in that particular verse. Was he assuming it? Well, I would have to argue that from elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, but the short answer is "yes". And if you decided to translate "sons" as "children" in Romans 8:14, it's likely that you would have departed somewhat from the thoughtworld that Paul inhabited.
and in the process given yourself a few other translation headaches as well, eg next time I read "huios" in Greek am I going to translate it as "son" or "child"? Why or why not? You get the picture.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
So to with the phrase "sons of God". I can see, if you are male, that that could be an extraordinarily potent image. The problem is, no matter how you explain to women that they too are sons, for some it will never be more than an intellectual understanding because, on a gut level, sons simply doesn't connect with who they are.
Hmm... Peronel, we seem to have large areas of overlap in our understanding about the function of language. I certainly don't believe that you shouldn't be offended by my views, no matter how much I explain them. Indeed, assuming that you assume what you've said you assume, the more I explain what I think, the more offended you'll get!
Yup. That would be because your view that God made women to be submissive in authority to men is offensive. Sexist language usually is, whether its intended to be or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
However I have a question for you about the paragraph I snipped here—is it your view, based on what you said, that women can't understand men?
I have no idea how you get that from what I've written. Rather, I think the problem is that some women - me included - are unable to understand that they are men. That would be because ... duh ... we're not.
I am also unable to understand why, in order to be included in the language of the church, I should have to self-identify as a man. Especially when that language is intended to place me in a subordinate position.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Consequently, when Paul says
quote:
1Th. 2:7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.
do you think "Paul you are lying like a rug, you don't understand and you never could"?
You're setting up a straw man. By this logic, in using the phrase "bread of heaven", Christ was "lying like a rug" because he'd never been a loaf, and so could never understand what it really meant to be dough. Plenty of men have experience of being nurtured by a mother, and it's that nurturing that is the issue here, just as in "bread of heaven" it's the nourishing that's important rather than the appreciation of how a farmhouse cob actually feels.
More important, however, is this: were you to expect your church to recite on a weekly basis "we are nursing mothers to our daughters in Christ" or whatever, I would expect at least some of the men (and women!) in the room to experience some level of disconnection.
Or are you really saying you could happily call yourself a mother in christ or a daughter of God without feeling the language was - intentionally or not - excluding you?
Over-riding all this, though, is the simple fact that women in your church have far more problems than the language you use. By your own admission, they are considered second class citizens, subordinate in authority to their men. They are not allowed to teach or lead men, simply because of their gender.
Frankly, you could use inclusive language as much as you liked, and it wouldn't alter the fact that your approach is fundamentally sexist.
Peronel.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I was attempting to base my argument on the Greek and Hebrew, at least in my own mind, even though I'm posting in English. I'm not an expert but I'm trying to reflect what I do know of the original languages.
But you are insisting on the use of the English word "men" to translate Greek and Hebrew words that do not imply maleness.
Why is it neccessary to use sex-typed language nowadays when the Holy Spirit did not find it neccessary to inpire the Biblical authors to do so?
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Gordon, you actually seem to me to be saying that you believe, and that you believe St Paul believed, that women are in an inferior position in the economy of salvation, rather than in the natural order.
You actually think that in using the masculine to convey inheritance and adoption and so forth, Paul is implying this, don't you? Otherwise you would surely be content to let a gender-neutral translation stand and fight the battle over those passages that deal with order and authority.
However, I'm with you on one point - that the more literal translation should be retained at least in a footnote, as it is throughout the NRSV when inclusive language is used. It allows the argument that as St Paul's writings are heavily conditioned by the male authority assumptions of his culture, certain passages relating to women opening their mouths can be interpreted as culture-specific directions...
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
and in the process given yourself a few other translation headaches as well, eg next time I read "huios" in Greek am I going to translate it as "son" or "child"? Why or why not? You get the picture.
This is the weakest argument you've employed so far. I'm sure you don't need me to point out why, but just for the record, there isn't a reliable one-to-one mapping between single words in any two languages with which I'm familiar, many words have more than one meaning that are completely incompatible with each other, and context is of huge importance in determining the precise meaning of a word.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Individual women may or not feel marginalized or oppressed; they may or may not actually be marginalized or oppressed. What we are addressing is a structural issue, an ideology, which tends to promote the marginalization of women. This is not to say that throughout the centuries of male supremacy there were never any happy women, and likewise this is not to say that there are no happy, faithful women today whose faith is nurtured by the use of traditional language in their public and private devotions.
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
If individuals feel marginalised or oppressed because language has changed its meaning, then
I agree that the language should change (where there's a good alternative). But that's not an ideology that you're addressing.
You're arguing with Gordon Cheng over whether his approval of male-gender-language is ideological. I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that ? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet ?
Best wishes to you (personally),
Russ
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
This whole argument is somewhat pointless because, whatever we feel about the PC of a word, it can and will be changed. Consider what "dial" really means now with push button phones, or "clockwise" with digital clocks. We'll probably hang on to these anachronisms because there is no ownership or feelings attached. But what about "gay" as used by Shakespeare and now cannot be used in English Lit classes without a teen fit?
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Are you trying to tell me that if those missos hadn't fed bread to the Amazonians, then the word "bread" could've been translated as "bread" (+ specialist knowledge, courtesy of those who knew what bread was); but that once the Amazonians had eaten bread and thrown up, the translation "bread" for bread was no longer acceptable? I don't get that. Why not a simple: "I'm sorry—normally when we feed people bread they don't throw up" followed by business as usual.
Because – in the case of ‘the bread of life’ - you are translating a metaphor. You therefore want the metaphor to have the impact intended by the original speaker. I think Peronel’s point about the ants explains it perfectly well.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
No, it attempts to address everybody. He who has ears to hear, let him hear quote:
when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
You’re just playing with words here. The 'ideology' is that all people are of equal value in the eyes of God, you can call that anti-sexism if you want, I call it part of my Faith.
You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that people who support the status quo aren’t being 'ideological', whereas those who challenge it are. This is breathtakingly naïve. Like those people who say: “I’m not political, I always vote Conservative.” quote:
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
So, for example, the anti-slavery lobby should just have focused on helping individual slaves to escape, or on trying to buy individual slaves, rather than campaigning at a structural level for the abolition of slavery?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
Why? Given sexism is denying women opportunity based on their gender, why should oppossing that be worrying?
quote:
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that ? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet ?
I've repeatedly said I'm not trying to speak for all women. I've repeatedly said not all women will feel this way. I've repeatedly said this is how I feel, this is what I experience.
If you're going to take issue with me, then please do me the courtesy of taking issue with what I've actually said.
Peronel.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
Besides, why should we require the other party to do all the work?
No, this is quite right and I'm sorry for my sarcasm. But again, the answer is that the Lord Jesus provides people who will explain what 'bread' means. I don't believe many of my Christian contemporaries at school saw unleavened bread until they were teenagers, but they had kind teachers who explained what it meant. Which helped them understand the Bible without needing the analogy translated for them—Israelites eating Arnott's SAOs and so on and so forth...
I see. SO it's all right that the Gospel is meaningless until you take the right course in interpretation and a couple of lessons in interpreting obsolete language use?
I would have thought that was rather like going about putting beams in peoples' eyes, who had previously had clear sight. Or deliberately erecting obstacles to faith.
John
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Greyface:
quote:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
A thought assails.
If the word 'sons' is supposed to indicate 'child who will inherit' as opposed to daughters, who couldn't then the word takes on a feminist meaning. If women in antiquity couldn't inherit then being designated God's sons indiscriminately of gender says something about God. To wit that he is not concerned with the barriers that the secular world puts up. In the Kingdom of God, Jews can join posh golf clubs and no-one cares about black and white people using the same drinking fountains.
Now if you translate 'son' as 'child' you lose that nuance. The world of antiquity was Patriarchal and oppressive. If you translate the Bible to make it look as if everyone concerned had the same mindset as Baroness Shirley Williams you miss the ways in which that world is subverted by the coming of Christ.
Not that I am dogmatically opposed to inclusive language. And I am slightly embarassed to find myself in the same camp as Gordon. But the fact remains that it is often the 'otherness' of the Bible which can point to its liberatory nature.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
I think that most of us would agree that, where the Bible is concerned, what matters is that the translation should be as accurate as possible. Part of the problem though, is how to accurately translate a metaphor. Is the phrase 'sons of God' metaphorical or a literal?
[ 10. June 2005, 16:44: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I think this gets closest to identifying what bothers me about the feminist agenda - that it's an ideology which addresses women as a class.
Problem number one with your understanding of feminism--there is no one feminist agenda, because there is no one feminism. It seems to me that you are like others on this thread reacting to the feminist of 30-40 years ago, not the feminist movement and various strands of feminist thought as they exist today. Lots of feminist thinkers realized quite a while ago that addressing women as a group with no differences among them, no differences of color or class, for instance, was very problematic.
quote:
You're arguing with Gordon Cheng over whether his approval of male-gender-language is ideological. I think I'm suggesting that when "anti-sexism" becomes an ideology, it's time to start worrying.
Agree with Peronel on this. Anti-sexism is part of my faith, grounded in the belief that women and men alike are created in the image of God.
quote:
I feel that the brother-sister love a Christian should have for other Christians is for people as individual people rather than as members of a class.
If I know people as individuals, I can love them as individuals. But I deal with strangers nearly every day, and I am supposed to love them too, and while it sounds rather colder than I mean it to sound, I would say insofar as I succeed in loving them I love them as members of a class--they are human beings.
quote:
I note that both you and Peronel say that you're not trying to speak for all women. But as soon as you say that a particular use of language is tending against the interest of women as a class, (rather than problematic for you personally) aren't you doing just that? Isn't there an implicit claim that it is in the interest of all women that you take this stand, even if some of them don't know it yet?
Peronel and I are both individuals and members of a number of different classes--we're women, we're Christians, we each belong to a socio-economic class, we each are classified by our societies into a racial group. We can make statements about what we think is in the interests of Christians without having all other Christians agree with us--no one would say, "Hey, you can't say those things at all because you don't speak for all Christians."
Yes, it is ultimately in the interest of all women that they be freed from the many varied forms of oppression under which they live. The suffragists spoke in the interests of all women when they said that women should get the vote, despite the fact that some women disagreed with them. We don't look back now and say the suffragists were wrong in what they said. Today the fact that there are women who disagree with me, Peronel, Qlib, Nicodemia, Avalon (hi Avalon, and thanks for the vote of confidence), et alia, does not perforce mean we are wrong in what we're saying or wrong to say it.
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
I have been told that the first Inuktitut translation of the New Testament translated "Lamb of God" into "God's special thing that looks like a caribou calf" -- probably missing the entire point.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
I'm no linguist, but I thought it was a given that there can be no "perfect" translation of any text. No two languages work in exactly the same way; there are nuances and undertones that will never be expressed completely. And that is ANY text - once we start talking about God language becomes even more problematic.
For instance, I am not a "son" of God according to any of the normal meanings of the word. Biologically and legally I know whose son I am. But "Son of God" is a metaphor that is useful as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor. In the same way, stating I am an "heir" of God is only helpful up to a point. The normal meaning of the word is "one who inherits after the death of a parent". Given that God is not likely to die any time soon this particular line of imagery does not mean a lot to me personally. If you find it helpful, great - but you still need to acknowledge it is an image rather than a direct description.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I read once years ago that when the Bible was translated into a language spoken by a land-locked desert people (sorry, can't remember if it was Arabic or something else), they translated "anchor" with the word for the thing used for tying up a horse, a thing that was driven down into the sand and kept the horse from wandering off.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
For instance, I am not a "son" of God according to any of the normal meanings of the word. Biologically and legally I know whose son I am. But "Son of God" is a metaphor that is useful as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor. In the same way, stating I am an "heir" of God is only helpful up to a point. The normal meaning of the word is "one who inherits after the death of a parent". Given that God is not likely to die any time soon this particular line of imagery does not mean a lot to me personally. If you find it helpful, great - but you still need to acknowledge it is an image rather than a direct description.
Good. as long as I recognise that it is a metaphor and so on. The thing is, that "son" has a contemporary meaning that is clear and apparently makes sense in the context, so why would any listener assume that there was a metophor in play, or a different meaning that was the right one? The normal meaning of "son" today is not "one who inherits" -- it is "male child". And, to deal with Gordon's position, using "son" as the translation no longer carries any implication of male dominance or precedence or authority either.
The problem is not with the Greek original, nor even with the 16th century translation when it was made: the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
John
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
But if you did translation in the secular world on that basis, except maybe in the realm of popular fiction, you'd lose your job within a very short space of time.
If you translate "son" as "inheritor", you're writing a huge amount of interpretation in along the way, and a monolingual reader has no way to judge the validity of that decision or assess the assumptions on which it was based.
That's the big big problem with dynamic equivalence Bible translations in general - they make perfect sense, it's just that they force the reader to adopt the translator's theological stance. And I have to say that is sounds from this thread that this may be the explicit intention in some cases.
Paul didn't write "inheritor". I suspect the words existed for him to do so if he had wanted to. He wrote "son", in a culture where that word had certain connotations. Once you start down the road of picking words to create the same effect as the original words did in the original hearers (like we really know for sure what happened inside people's heads 2,000 years ago...), you're on the short road to "David went into a cave to go to the bathroom", (early Living Bible), and we may as well replace "camel" with "Toyota pickup" - after all, camels carry connotations of "zoo", not "mundane form of transportation". And then we can talk about the rich man passing through the eye of the pickup, except that doesn't work, so maybe in this case the word camel should be translated as moped, and so on and so on...
The whole process is really an insult to the reader's intelligence. I expect someone to tell me that the above example is silly because while "everyone" knows that pre-industrial societies used animals for transport, "no-one" knows that gender roles have changed in the last 2 millenia. I just hope they don't expect me to believe them...
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The problem is not with the Greek original, nor even with the 16th century translation when it was made: the "problem" is with contemporary English in which the word "son" doesn't mean what you want it to and is not an accurate translation of the meaning of the Greek original.
And in a sense, no word is accurate. "Child" has problems. "Offspring" has problems. "Heir" has problems. In fact, if we were going to be conducting this discussion about the Greek, "huios" has problems.
Callan picked it earlier. To use "Son" is radically counter-sexist.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To use "Son" is radically counter-sexist.
Only with radically twisted logic.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
What was wrong with my logic?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Greyface:
quote:
Do you consider language such as "sons of God" to be an accurate translation (as opposed to transliteration) into modern English of the intention of the author, as in, the purpose was to convey the subordination of women in the divine purpose?
A thought assails.
If the word 'sons' is supposed to indicate 'child who will inherit' as opposed to daughters, who couldn't then the word takes on a feminist meaning. If women in antiquity couldn't inherit then being designated God's sons indiscriminately of gender says something about God. To wit that he is not concerned with the barriers that the secular world puts up. In the Kingdom of God, Jews can join posh golf clubs and no-one cares about black and white people using the same drinking fountains.
Sure, God's not interested in the barriers we set up. But I don't think black people in the Kingdom of God are going to want to be called "white" nor understand themselves as being white, and neither do I want to be called a "son" or understand myself as one. It's simply not who I am. And that's where your logic breaks down as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Now if you translate 'son' as 'child' you lose that nuance. The world of antiquity was Patriarchal and oppressive. If you translate the Bible to make it look as if everyone concerned had the same mindset as Baroness Shirley Williams you miss the ways in which that world is subverted by the coming of Christ.
Not that I am dogmatically opposed to inclusive language. And I am slightly embarassed to find myself in the same camp as Gordon. But the fact remains that it is often the 'otherness' of the Bible which can point to its liberatory nature.
Well, you oughta be embarrassed to be in Gordon's camp, seeing as he's advocating a subordinate status for women.
Yes, the "otherness" of the Bible can point to its liberatory nature, but there are at this point too many hurdles in trying to understand myself as a "son" to feel at all liberated by the notion. I'm a woman, dammit (and a deeply feminine woman at that, I've been privately advised)--requiring me to understand myself as a "son" in order to understand how I am saved is outrageous. Callan, you aren't required to understand yourself as something you fundamentally are not, so why should I?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Sure, God's not interested in the barriers we set up. But I don't think black people in the Kingdom of God are going to want to be called "white" nor understand themselves as being white, and neither do I want to be called a "son" or understand myself as one. It's simply not who I am. And that's where your logic breaks down as far as I'm concerned.
I seem to recall Paul describing Gentiles as ingrafted into Israel in Romans. Of course it would be deeply inappropriate and crass for me to go round describing myself as an honorary Jew but we can allow Paul the liberty of using the analogy to describe exactly what God, in Christ, has done.
quote:
Well, you oughta be embarrassed to be in Gordon's camp, seeing as he's advocating a subordinate status for women.
Yes, the "otherness" of the Bible can point to its liberatory nature, but there are at this point too many hurdles in trying to understand myself as a "son" to feel at all liberated by the notion. I'm a woman, dammit (and a deeply feminine woman at that, I've been privately advised)--requiring me to understand myself as a "son" in order to understand how I am saved is outrageous. Callan, you aren't required to understand yourself as something you fundamentally are not, so why should I?
Trust me, I'm mortified. However the madness has passed and I think that my position is closer to yours than it is to Gordon's.
I think there are two things going on in the inclusive language debate. The first is where people insist on using "men" as a shorthand for "people" the reasoning being, to quote Augustine (from memory), "that women are included under the more important sex". Now, I agree with you, that this should go in the name of intelligibility and sexual justice in contemporary liturgy and hymnody.
However when we use terms like 'Son of God' they are as much terms which are used by grace applied to me as they are applied to you. In this instance you are not being asked to consider yourself "a male biological child of a human father". You are asked to consider yourself as someone who, through grace, may partake in the divine nature of the Son of God.
Terms like 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God' are Messianic titles which apply to our Lord. When applied to human beings they speak not of maleness, but of our capacity for theosis. In this sense, both of us are required to think of ourselves as something that we fundamentally are not not because of our gender but because of our fallen humanity.
All I'm saying is that we should hesitate before chucking talk of ourselves as 'Sons of God' in a soteriological context on the same rubbish heap as, say, "We have sinned against you and against our fellow men". I think there are different theological dynamics at work.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think there are two things going on in the inclusive language debate. The first is where people insist on using "men" as a shorthand for "people" the reasoning being, to quote Augustine (from memory), "that women are included under the more important sex". Now, I agree with you, that this should go in the name of intelligibility and sexual justice in contemporary liturgy and hymnody.
Yay!
quote:
However when we use terms like 'Son of God' they are as much terms which are used by grace applied to me as they are applied to you. In this instance you are not being asked to consider yourself "a male biological child of a human father". You are asked to consider yourself as someone who, through grace, may partake in the divine nature of the Son of God.
And I am humbly grateful to be invited to partake in the divine nature of the Son of God--especially worded like that, as it doesn't ask me to call myself a "son."
quote:
Terms like 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God' are Messianic titles which apply to our Lord. When applied to human beings they speak not of maleness, but of our capacity for theosis. In this sense, both of us are required to think of ourselves as something that we fundamentally are not not because of our gender but because of our fallen humanity.
There's an added step for women, though. And it's a very, very hard step to take. Trying to think of myself using a term like "son" that is obviously and clearly male in the language I use every day means I have make a mental correction in my head every single time I hear or use the word that you don't have to make. That's the first thing that makes it hard for me. The second is that in trying to think of myself as a "son" I have to fight hard against the idea that in doing so I am somehow distancing myself from being female, something I am loathe to do, partly because as I said before, dammit, I'm a woman, and partly because to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people. To the professors who were so surprised when I said I wanted to go to graduate school, because it never occurred to them to encourage me, simply because I'm female. To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men. To every man who has ever demeaned me simply because he was a man and therefore could.
quote:
All I'm saying is that we should hesitate before chucking talk of ourselves as 'Sons of God' in a soteriological context on the same rubbish heap as, say, "We have sinned against you and against our fellow men". I think there are different theological dynamics at work.
Yes, you're right. But you have to respect also the fact that asking people to call themselves "Sons of God" asks more of women than it does of men and is for some women enough of a stumbling block to make them never give the church a chance to explain what the hell it's supposed to mean. I know what it's supposed to mean, and it's still hard, hard, hard.
[added stuff]
[ 10. June 2005, 22:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on
:
The more I read this thread, the more I am given to believe that the use of inclusive language is imperative at this time and in this culture. And coming from exactly the opposite end the thealogical spectrum, I HATE inclusive language. It has always struck me as the tepid, bland, and weak response to an overwhelming and ecstatic human impulse to understand and relate to the Divine as Goddess. It is a compromise arising out of the mediocrity of a committee group-think which seeks to make tame a call to religion which, by all tradition, should have claws. It leads to awkward constructions in English, and its uses diminishes the grand, glorious poetry of the Christian liturgical heritage.
But all that being said, the idea that humans with external genitals have a privileged relation to God is not Christian, and it is time to stop acting like it is. Christ did not come to save men, and as an afterthought save women too. Repeatedly in his ministry on earth we are told of his reaching out to those who were not privileged in his society, and every single goddamn time he said, "They belong by my side too." He was emphatically not Confucius meticulously detailing the proper order for social precedence: "Youngest daughter reports to oldest daughter reports to youngest son reports to oldest son reports to mother reports to father." In fact, the two pillars of his message appear to this pagan to be Love and reciprocity of the Golden Rule.
And so if a whole bunch of people are saying, "I feel excluded by the language being used in church", is it loving kindness to say, "No you don't," "Well, you shouldn't," "Actually, you're supposed to be," or "I know some people just like you who don't."? Is that how you would want to be done unto?
It seems to me, that if the cost is small and the rewards are great, then you make the investment in changing the way things are done every single time. Here the cost might be the loss of some fidelity to the literal texts (and that's moot), and the loss of some measure of the grandeur of the language. But these costs are insignificant: we still have the original texts in the original languages and they can always be our touchstone! We can address the institutional sexism in this time and in this culture, and when that task is done we can always return to the grandeur of the old language or address new textual issues. The Christian texts are hardy memes, I trust that they will be faithfully forwarded to future generations.
But an assumption implicit in all this debate nags at me. Why must there only be one correct language of God? How can there be only one way to speak about or to God? How can the language we use to think about and address the Divine conceivably be static and fixed? We've talked about the issues of translation and liturgy as if there can only be one correct solution to these problems now and forevermore. And that is patently not true. There is a truth in the word "son", a different truth in "child", and different one in "heir", and a different one in "daughter". The value in meaning of these truths will differ among individuals and among different cultures. Some of these truths will be closer to the intent of the person who wrote them. Some might even be closer to what God intended for this time and culture (though that's much harder to call). Some even might be essentially heretical. However, if they all separately each bring a few people to God, then why not say they all are of some value and can have their time, their place and their use?
As a poet, I am unsatisfied if my words cannot be read and understood in many ways simultaneously. It is clear that the more poetic passages of the Bible were written and read with that understanding and delight as well. The best, if not the most literal, translations evoke that poetic ambiguity hopefully in ways which are well understood in the current culture. If, however, a language becomes a barrier to some to reaching out and experiencing a full relationship to the Divine, then why are we even debating the use of that language? Love demands that we embrace and include.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men.
Subordinate in authority, in the context of marriage. Not subordinate in ontology, just as the s/Son is not ontologically subordinate to the f/Father.
And within the church, accorded roles that are not subordinate, simply different.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The more I read this thread, the more I am given to believe that the use of inclusive language is imperative at this time and in this culture.
And I believe it is imperative that we retain the ability to express ideas that accord with certain strands of conservative biblical theology, although we may disagree with that theology.
It's a very small step from "is imperative" to finding a willing volunteer to do the enforcing.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To Gordon Cheng, who thinks women are naturally subordinate to men.
Subordinate in authority, in the context of marriage. Not subordinate in ontology, just as the s/Son is not ontologically subordinate to the f/Father.
And within the church, accorded roles that are not subordinate, simply different.
Gordon, could you please list some roles in your version of Christianity that women are allowed to have that men aren't allowed, and then vise-versa. I'll stipulate motherhood and fatherhood on each list. Thanks.
[ 10. June 2005, 23:58: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
But all that being said, the idea that humans with external genitals have a privileged relation to God is not Christian, and it is time to stop acting like it is.
Absolutely right, and fiddling with the lexis doesn't have a lot to do with achieving that. UK schools are now wonderfully politically correct, children's programmes are fantastically affirming of everyone, and yet more teenage girls think that being pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen at 14 is a goal to aim for than at any time in recent history, despite the total absence of this "message" in any official media. The link between rhetoric and behaviour is not proven, it's just an unjustified extrapolation of a dubious French theory which, at its heart, is incompatible with historical Christianity.
quote:
Why must there only be one correct language of God? How can there be only one way to speak about or to God? How can the language we use to think about and address the Divine conceivably be static and fixed?
On one level, there's no reason at all, and, if some people want to worship using inclusive language, I don't have any problem with that. And, for texts that men and women have to subscribe to, making the texts as comfortable as possible for both genders to use is just common sense. I submit the Church of Fools statement of purpose as an illustration (although I wouldn't have wanted to write anything much longer without using pronouns).
It's the repeated claim that inclusive language should be normative that is silly and wrong.
Two words which I think demonstrate this are "worldwide church". There are far more practising English-speaking anglicans in the developing world than in the West, and that trend is set to continue. In a generation's time, Asia may well be in the theological driving seat. Like it or not, uniquely Western theological concerns will soon be a minor specialist-interest branch of mainstream Christianity.
If you made linguistic decisions about liturgy on a democratic basis, countries like Nigeria and Uganda would have a huge vote compared to most Western countries. At a guess, making language gender-neutral is not on their agenda, and let's not even start down the sexual orientation road. So should Western churches accept liturgy as defined by African theologians? Should Africans be forced to use our more enlightened liturgies in the best colonial traditions? Should each part of English-speaking anglicanism have their own liturgy? If so, should a predominantly African congregation in London use the Western or the African liturgy? How about if the Africans are second-generation British? What about if there is a mix of culturally African and culturally European Africans in the congregation? ... and if African and European congregations who speak the same language the rest of the week cannot worship together on Sunday, what does that proclaim to the world about the universal Church? Does it mean that single race congregations were a great plan after all?
And it's not as if this is a brand new problem. Paul spent his whole ministry trying to make multicultural congregations work - that's where the "adopted sons" rhetoric in Galatians is heading. The church in Corinth was as cosmopolitan as any inner city church you will find today. Gender roles varied widely between Roman, Greek, Jewish and the various pagan cultures he rubbed up against. Paul is not an armchair missiologist, he's a multilingual, cross-cultural missionary. We know he could do "gentile-speak" from Acts 17, for example.
But he chooses to write all his letters drawing heavily on Jewish imagery. I'd suggest that he does so because, if you are going to have one normative mode of expression, making it the same one that the Bible uses (the OT in his case) is the only way to go. If he had opted for, say, Roman culture as the linguistically normative one, every culture since would have had a lot more trouble working out what he was talking about, because we'd all need to untangle two lots of ancient cultures. And if he'd gone for a radical rewrite of the lexis for the Romans, the Corinthians (who, by this model, would have had several ethnically pure congregations), the Philippians, and so on, we wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of working out what was going on, and there would have been very little possibility of synergy between 1st Century congregations.
Now if we wanted a change that everyone could surely agree on, across cultures and continents, it would be that slavery is definitely bad. It's an urgent, contemporary problem. So are we going to rewrite Jesus' and Paul's statements and metaphors that draw on the imagery of slavery to conform to, say, French employment law? Wouldn't that be liberating for the oppressed everywhere? If not, why not, apart from the fact that we don't have many slaves arguing their case here or in denominational quangos?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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).
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
At the risk of having all you scholarly beings descending on my head with sarcasm and ridicule, I would point out that John, in his Gospel, chap 1:12 usesthe Greek word tekna, calling us 'children of God'. As far as I can see, and I am not a Greek scholar, this means children of either sex. No nonsense about sons including daughters.
Furthermore, the same John (or a different one, whichever) several times uses the term 'children of God' in his first letter. tekna again.
If the 'beloved disciple' can use non-sexist language, surely Gordon/the church/you and me, can?
As a tangent, I have always been of the opinion that Paul, brought up as he was, a legalistic Jew, had great difficulty in trying to remember that women weren't second class people, let alone citizens. He tries, but you can see his basic beliefs creeping through in lots of places.
Sexism began when the early medieval church fathers and others let their beliefs that women were dangerous, unreliable, fit only for breeding and hadn't got big enough brains to understand anything, seep into their writings, creeds and liturgies.
As Ruth says, 'I'm a woman, dammit' and its time this was recognised in the church as well as the world.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Lyda Rose
(Slightly tongue in cheek)
I think Gordon means leadership and headship but is a bit too shy to say it, taking refuge behind risotto.
ALthough not invited, I think the NT confirms my view of my wife that she can be trusted with any responsibility she has the gifts, talents and desire for. Actually, I think she can be trusted with a lot more than that.
My wife says I should not be trusted with the identification of dust or the finding of anything in a hurry - but I can't find any scriptural justification for these assertions. Though she is right on both counts.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Sexism began when the early medieval church fathers and others let their beliefs that women were dangerous, unreliable, fit only for breeding and hadn't got big enough brains to understand anything, seep into their writings, creeds and liturgies.
Wasn't there a council where they voted on whether women had souls? It was, I understand, a very close vote of something like 52% in favour of the idea but the rest against it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
The link between rhetoric and behaviour is not proven, it's just an unjustified extrapolation of a dubious French theory which, at its heart, is incompatible with historical Christianity.
Does this justify wrong, misleading rhetoric? And what of James' description of the power of the tongue..... incompatible with Christianity also?
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
....countries like Nigeria and Uganda would have a huge vote compared to most Western countries. At a guess, making language gender-neutral is not on their agenda, and let's not even start down the sexual orientation road. So should Western churches accept liturgy as defined by African theologians? Should Africans be forced to use our more enlightened liturgies in the best colonial traditions? Should each part of English-speaking anglicanism have their own liturgy? If so, should a predominantly African congregation in London use the Western or the African liturgy? How about if the Africans are second-generation British? What about if there is a mix of culturally African and culturally European Africans in the congregation? ... and if African and European congregations who speak the same language the rest of the week cannot worship together on Sunday, what does that proclaim to the world about the universal Church? Does it mean that single race congregations were a great plan after all?
I don't follow the logic here; it isn't true that Africans want non-inclusive language in liturgy; the East African church, for instance, has never had a problem with the role of women in the church, and the liturgy used by the Church of Kenya is much more inclusive than the Church of England's. Even better in Swahili. And that challenges another assumption - we don't speak the same language always. By your logic should the churches all be encouraged to use the same language rather than diversifying?
And why do you assume opinions will follow race and prevent racial harmony? Why wouldn't we all pray together using inclusive language?
There are other false assumptions, but I'll stop there. I don't think this line is going to be a good argument against inclusive language.
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Now if we wanted a change that everyone could surely agree on, across cultures and continents, it would be that slavery is definitely bad. It's an urgent, contemporary problem. So are we going to rewrite Jesus' and Paul's statements and metaphors that draw on the imagery of slavery to conform to, say, French employment law? Wouldn't that be liberating for the oppressed everywhere? If not, why not, apart from the fact that we don't have many slaves arguing their case here or in denominational quangos?
But the change from son to child, for instance, hardly changes the metaphor in my view; it's just a more accurate word that includes everyone.
The metaphors on slavery often draw on the fact that slaves aren't liberated - that they do anothers will - that they are slaves. Now if you actually believe Jesus only wanted to include men in the church when the word "brothers" or "sons" is used, yes we are changing things. But I'm not sure that is the case.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
<snip>
I certainly can't see why women shouldn't be allowed to lead communion. <snip>
[Tangent, I guesss]
Now I don't share your approach to the scriptures, so far as I can see, but I am suprised at your response to this one. I've had to skip in and out of this thread so maybe I've missed something. But surely to "lead" is to "preside" is to "head", and therefore would be anathema to a "conservative" reading of the New Testament text? Certainly I would have thought liturgical presidency was every bit, if not more, a leadership/headship role as a woman, for example a Pheme Perkins or a Morna Hooker, lecturing a gathering of tautolgically male Sydney ordinands, about which I seem to recall you expressing reservations?
I am writing in a hurry from memory, so correct me where I'm wrong.
As it happens I hold no trunk for the belief that a scruiptural writing imposes a timeless standard on subsequent generations on issues such as order and sexuality. I see the texts as highly culturally conditioned.
[/Tangent]
I have utilised inclusive language since about 1980. Regardless of the semantic arguments so eloquently championed by Melon in particular, I see l;anguage as a flexible and discardable tool - if it's broke cease to use it. Hybrid etymological roots are a non issue - so what if a woird amalgamates say Mandarin and Maori, so long as it serves as a vehicle of communication.
If a word has ceased to serve as that vehicle - and "man" etc have long since ceased to be satisfactory vehicles of any but a gender specific meaning (regardless of their past history) - then consign it to ancient and historical texts as no more than a journey through the past.
This is particularly so for the Christ-bearing community, for whom language must always serve kerygma - (proclamation). If our masculine pronouns inhibit proclamation to even a tiny minority of the population - and I suspect womankind is not that - then there's a round bin beneath the ecclesiastical desk to which such usage should be consigned.
It ain't that hard.
In Australia, incidentally, I think the ecclesia is streets ahead of media on this issue - to my horror I hear and see the once-generic "man" and "mankind" used even by institutions like the broadsheet papers, the ABC and SBS. Come on, people - it ain't that hard, ain't that painful.
In fact I can't believe it has run to an eight page thread.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Is it superfluous to point out that Sydney seems to be an abberation in Australian Anglicanism as a whole? Certainly AA (if I may call it that) seems to me to take inclusive language very seriously indeed.
As for women leading communion, well it all depends on your priorities. I suspect there is an underlying assumption: celebrating communion - not very important - anyone can do it, preaching - very important - keep it to the men.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
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
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
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! )
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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 ]
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.)
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I repeat: quote:
...just men using God's name to impose their wills on, and puff up their importance in relationship to women.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ...)
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
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.
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
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.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
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.
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
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?
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
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
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
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.
Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on
:
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 .
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 .
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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?
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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 ]
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
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?
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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).
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
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 ]
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
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".
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
Thank you, Emma and Peronel, for explaining better than I could what I meant.
Sx
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
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:- 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
- 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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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]
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
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.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
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?
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
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 ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on
:
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.
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on
:
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.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
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.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you haven't said WHY he thinks you can't be a pilot
Under the example given, he thinks I can't be a pilot because I'm female. You could substitute in "preacher" or something, but then I run the risk of being shot down for not remembering a post that happened two years ago, or similar. I was deliberately trying to use a new example.
It was just to explain why every time someone of uses the "but I can't give birth, there now, don't you feel better?" line I want to punch something, because it's not the same thing at all. I was rather hoping Gordon would then stop using useless comparisons (like the queen one) and explain himself in a way that actually helped me understand him.
[ 13. June 2005, 03:51: Message edited by: Ginga ]
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
IngoB's post makes me realize that I should probably clarify that I'm of the "fidelity to the text" persuasion when it comes to Biblical translation, with explanatory footnotes when needed. (And I can't resist pointing out that either Alter or Fox (or possibly both - I've loaned out my copies and can't check) notes that in the OT, the Hebrew "birthed" was often mistranslated as the more masculine "begat" unless the passage was about a literal woman giving birth.)
It's in the liturgy I see the need for inclusive language - and the liturgy seems to be where exclusive language is most problematic. There is already much inclusiveness in Anglican liturgy, and some of it is very well done. For example, from the post communion prayer:
quote:
Almighty and everliving God,....dost assure us thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs, through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom....
Members, people, heirs - not a gender-specific collective noun is used (unless you consider "heir" as masculine, but I think this usage has become neutral), but the text does an excellent job of conveying the concept Paul was talking about when he wrote "sons of God." And this language isn't new - it's in the 1892 and 1928 BCPs as well.
I tried a little experiment as I was waiting to do lockup this Sunday - I pulled out the BCP and, where I found gender-neutral language, I substituted in the collective male. The results were interesting:
"The Gifts of God for the men of God. Take them in remembrance...."
"Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your sons the Body and Blood..."
"...we who have been redeemed by Him, and made new men by water and the Spirit, now bring before you these gifts..."
"Lord, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your holy men..."
"Remember all your sons, and those who seek your truth..."
If you accept the "collective male includes the female so no need to change argument," all of these phrases should be acceptable to you. The fact that I find them as jarring as I do is making me rethink my personal lack of objection to the male collective. (In case you don't have the fortitude to wade back through the thread, I've advocated change on the basis of those who do find it distancing, though I previously didn't.)
ETA: all of this has made me ponder liturgy IS interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps a new Purg thread in a day or two...
[ 13. June 2005, 04:34: Message edited by: Sienna ]
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
you haven't said WHY he thinks you can't be a pilot
Under the example given, he thinks I can't be a pilot because I'm female.
Right. The point still stands that you are equivocating on "could".
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
GAAH - Can't edit my edits properly...
All this has made me ponder the extent to which liturgy IS the interpretation of Scripture....
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
All this has made me ponder the extent to which liturgy IS the interpretation of Scripture....
As opposed to what? I'd be interested in seeing that thread.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
Mousetheif: I know, I've figured out what you meant now (my female brain is working slowly at the moment. Apologies).
I'm not arguing the theology or the rightness or wrongness of the particular theological stance. I'm trying to point out to Gordon that his examples of why I shouldn't get upset at having my horizons trimmed don't work. He says I shouldn't mind not being able to be a preacher because I don't mind not being able to be queen. I say that's not true.
Whether or not I've muddled my uses of 'could' would be relevant if I was arguing against headship. I'm not, I'm arguing against Gordon's examples being useful. Instead of telling me he can't be a mother, I want him to come up with something that's relevant that he can't do because he's a man. A good example might be if no men could be left in charge of children, because looking after children is women's work, regardless of how well they might be able to actually look after them. I would like an example of men being constrained by the men's-work/women's work boundaries. Alternatively, I would like an example of a role that it is perfectly reasonable to stop me from filling on the grounds of my sex, even though I have the abilities and legal freedom to do it (for these purposes, you could obviously use all women, to save me listing my cv).
If I said no men could give birth, no-one would mind. If I said no men could be left in charge of their own chlidren for the evening, people would mind. That's the reason I don't like what Gordon's using as examples, and why I'm hoping he can help me understand him using some different examples. Sorry if I muddled the issue. It's all one big tangent from the OP anyway, for which a third round of apologies.
[ 13. June 2005, 04:55: Message edited by: Ginga ]
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
MT - I'm still working out exactly how to express my idea - hopefully in a day or two....
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
. 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.
Except that slave traders are amongst those listed in the NT amongst those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they repent). I recognise that the reference is to slave trading not slaves but its difficult to see how the latter can be justified when the former is condemned.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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 am astonished that a Christian should write this as we enter the 21st century. Just because the Bible doesn't clearly condemn something doesn't mean that it must therefore be OK.
As has already been pointed out, your example of present day slavery is just codswallop. There is still serious slavery going on in our world today and it is important that Christians make a clear, unequivocal statement that it is wrong - completely wrong.
But, of course, your theological position has trapped you in a corner, hasn't it? The Bible doesn't clearly condemn slavery - and so if you agree that slavery is wrong, you are going beyond the Bible. But if you do that for slavery, you cannot object when others do the same for such matters as women in leadership (or even homosexuality). So, in order to maintain the party line on other matters, you are forced to come to a bizarre (and nausiating) conclusion.
It took a long time in coming, but the Christian Church made the stand - regardless of the lack of specific statements in the Bible, slavery (real slavery in all its forms) is a sin. You should be shamed for even suggesting that it might be OK in some circumstances.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
InigoB: quote:
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..."
No need to asume it, I think that is exactly the situation we are in. And, in fact, I think such diversity is helpful. Your average member of the congregation doesn't know Greek or Hebrew. If they get together for a Bible study then different translations bring out nuances of the original term. Given that no one word in Language X ever completely translates another word in Language Y this is important. Very full footnotes serve the same purpose, but can become so unweildy that they may not be used much.
Slight tangent, but within the remit of the thread. Over the weekend I took a blessing for 25 years of marriage for some old friends. They had put the service booklet together, using Common Worship. I was startled halfway through to find the response: quote:
Blessed are you, Lord Jesus Christ;
You have brought new life to mankind.
This startled me as I thought CW had been written on inclusive lines throughout. Can anyone who knows how it was put together (Charles Read?) explain how this slipped through?
And Oscar, in the department of no surprises, I agree with you completely.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But, of course, your theological position has trapped you in a corner, hasn't it? The Bible doesn't clearly condemn slavery - and so if you agree that slavery is wrong, you are going beyond the Bible. But if you do that for slavery, you cannot object when others do the same for such matters as women in leadership (or even homosexuality). So, in order to maintain the party line on other matters, you are forced to come to a bizarre (and nausiating) conclusion.
Actually, this is not the case at all. Gordon can answer for himself, of course. But I think all he has to say is this: Slavery is, like all human relations, tainted by sin. But unlike in other cases, we can always find a different form of relationship between humans to replace slavery, which is less sinful on any reasonable overall evaluation. Hence we clearly should seek to abolish slavery in all its forms to reduce sin. The bible does not condemn slavery explicitly, but it does condemn sin. What has changed since then is precisely that we have become aware of the fact that slavery is always more sinful than some other relation. This is our advance over ancient society, so we act on it. By doing so we remain faithful to the bible. From all this nothing much follows concerning other issues. For example, if one believes that homosexuality is sinful, then clearly it does not follow from this argument against slavery that one should not oppose homosexuality. (Please note the "if ... then" structure. I'm not trying to open a debate on homosexuality with this.)
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
IngoB posted:
quote:
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.
This is just the old "either/or" argument. Either we are morons reading "The Message" in between watching TV or we are scholars searching for the truth and studying koine Greek in our spare time.
What is wrong with having two sorts of Bibles (or three, or four)? I would imagine many Shipmates have two or more copies of the Bible in various translations. A contemporary paraphrase can often give a real "feel" of what the Bible is saying in our time, whilst for serious study we need a good translation. But God can reveal himself with either version.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Slavery is, like all human relations, tainted by sin..... we have become aware of the fact that slavery is always more sinful than some other relation.
So what you are saying is that slavery is not - in itself - wrong and sinful; which leaves open the possibility that there could be contexts in which slavery is acceptable. I'm gobsmacked that this should even be a theoretical possibility. Did Wilberforce et al labour for so long under a complete delusion?
Whereas I have no problem in saying clearly and unequivocally:
Slavery is wrong. It is always wrong. Christians should always oppose and denounce slavery.
(If you think this is a purely academic point, check out this antislavery website. Now is not the time for Christians to go soft on slavery)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This is just the old "either/or" argument. Either we are morons reading "The Message" in between watching TV or we are scholars searching for the truth and studying koine Greek in our spare time. What is wrong with having two sorts of Bibles (or three, or four)? I would imagine many Shipmates have two or more copies of the Bible in various translations.
I'm afraid this is just the old "either/or" reality... I doubt that most Christians in the world have more than one bible (if they have one at all). Then it becomes really important which bible they base their belief on. I share your suspicion that most Shipmates are "hobby scholars" and have several bibles and probably several bible commentaries, too. Even if they don't know koine, they will not be easily misled. But what about the person who owns "The Message" and thinks that this is "the bible", full stop?
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
A contemporary paraphrase can often give a real "feel" of what the Bible is saying in our time, whilst for serious study we need a good translation. But God can reveal himself with either version.
God's grace knows no bounds, for sure, but we shouldn't put Him to the test with crappy bible translations. The "feel" you are getting is simply one specific commentary which is not written separately (as it should IMHO), but integrated into the text. You like this commentary? Fine. But you still need a "good translation for serious study". Do these paraphrased bibles have a disclaimer on page one "You should also buy a 'good translation'?" And anyway, as you can see from my specific comment on "sons", I would probably consider a good many more conventional bibles not a "particularly great translation". I wouldn't be surprised if it was the majority of bibles now being sold. That is somewhat worrying then.
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Peronel:
<list snipped>
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. 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.
On one level, yes, your shoe size and gender have no bearing on your ability to teach, and to assess you on those things may be bigoted. But your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher. The distinctions created by God are seen as being of little importance. I find this curious, because I would have thought that rehabilitation of the female sex would start here, rather than with language.
I am aware that this may not be the point your post was directed towards, but I'm interested to see if anyone will look at the differences as something fundamentally theological rather than merely biological. We tend to look at competancy as the major criteria for a job, but I've yet to see people asking whether competancy is the only issue.
</tangent>
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So what you are saying is that slavery is not - in itself - wrong and sinful; which leaves open the possibility that there could be contexts in which slavery is acceptable. I'm gobsmacked that this should even be a theoretical possibility.
I'm not convinced that you've read carefully what I wrote. For me "slavery" denotes a specific form of human relationship. What I've then said is that slavery is always "more wrong and more sinful" than other human relationships which could take its place. Hence I can (and did) fully endorse:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Christians should always oppose and denounce slavery.
If you ask me whether slavery is wrong and sinful "as such", then I answer that it is, precisely in the above sense (which is practical, rather than Platonic...).
However, all this was not actually the intended topic of my post. Rather I wished to show that Gordon had actually left an escape route while painting himself into a corner.
[ 13. June 2005, 09:30: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb (to Peronel):
your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher.
This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? For example, in a residential children's home you would ideally want a mix of male and female social workers on each shift, precisely because they are different. But you wouldn't (or shouldn't)assume that any one woman would be better at the cooking and cleaning that any one man, not that any one man would be better at hill-walking and canoeing than any one woman.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
And, crucially, (because the above exchange has the potential to be a major tangent) if women are so very different from men, isn't that all the more reason for the language used in services to explicitly include them?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Mousethief - a tangent
I think I "got" what Ginga was posting, despite the equivocal "coulds" and "couldn'ts".
The issue is of restrictions of roles by prior condition. The "inclusive language" argument is just one of the battlegrounds.
In secular employment, there have been moves which are recognised generally as leading to an increase in fairness. Selection for employment roles (either recruitment or promotion) is now seen to be fair if determined by aptitude, gift, character, experience. Distinctions on grounds of gender or race or any irrelevant disability are discouraged as being unfair. (In practice, there is a good deal of chicanery, which I accept, but the principles are now pretty clearly stated, and most folks think they are right.)
The church in the western world would be wise to recognise that a change has occurred. Poeple will naturally ask the question. If prior conditions are applied to roles on the basis of gender, why do these different selection criteria apply today? And the reason is that the secular selection for employment model looks fair and right. It also looks pretty much in line with the parable of the talents, Galatians 3, and the glorious liberty of the children of God. If role attributions in the church do not look "fair or right" any more, then they get in the way of the message. This is not an argument in favour of fashion, or against faithfulness to tradition (at least in my view), but it is an issue of current day evangelism.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
[attempt to kill my involvement in tangent]Assuming the examples I have in my head of slavery are not in fact slavery (including the 'scholarship' example I gave earlier), then I am more than willing to say that slavery is evil and condemn it in the sorts of terms that OtG does.[/end attempt to kill my involvement in tangent. Interesting question though. I hope someone raises it as a thread in its own right in a few weeks, when I may have more time to get involved in it]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
IngoB said
quote:
I would probably consider a good many more conventional bibles not a "particularly great translation". I wouldn't be surprised if it was the majority of bibles now being sold. That is somewhat worrying then.
What is a "great translation" then? Or are we back at the "KJV-only" view?
And is not it better to read "The Message" than no Bible? It can lead to a non-Christian becoming an enquiring Christian, and being encouraged to read other Bibles.
And I'm not too sure what the "it" means in your second sentence. Do you mean "The Message" represents the majority of Bibles sold, or "a not very great translation" representing the majority sold? And which one would that be?
Better not get too involved in this tangent, or I will be deep in expired equine territory!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Except that slave traders are amongst those listed in the NT amongst those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they repent). I recognise that the reference is to slave trading not slaves but its difficult to see how the latter can be justified when the former is condemned.
Big tangent:
The langueage used in the NT doesn't clearly distinguish between chattel slaves, indentured servants ("bondsmen" & "bondswomen" we'd have said in England 1400 years later) & servants working for wages.
There are a number of words used for servant & they are not always restricted to free or unfree persons.
There is also a cultural overtone that we miss (int he OT, f not in the NT) in that it is regarded as better to be part of an extended household than it is to live in isolation. So the status of someone who freely chooses to be bound to another for a term of years, or for life, can be higher than that of someone who must wander about seeking casual employment.
So objecting to slave trade rather than slave holding might be a way of making a distinction between chattel slavery (where people can be disposed of at will by their masters) and people engaged as long-term servants (who we might consider as apprentices or permanent staff)
Even in the modern USA, where the status of slaves was on the whole lower than in the Greek-speaking world in NT times, there was the concept that being "sold down the river" broke some sort of mutual bond between slave and master - an unequal bond, but one which a slave had a rational expectation of being fulfilled by both sides.
Also, at least in NT times (not so sure about OT), a household slave sometimes derived some status from their master. The stewards or secretaties or housekeepers of wealthy people or aristocrats were often technically slaves, but could have a higher status than some free men - in Rome there were slaves who owned slaves. Some of these people are in the New Testament the Ethiopian eunuch that Philip met was almost certainly a slave. The Centurion's servant the Jesus healed would have been a slave.
Slaves of that sort of status were commonly freed on the death of their master, or else in middle age, as a sort of retirement present or soemtimes on the occasion of their own marriage (slaves could not freely marry in Rome). Much of the middle class & skilled workforce of Rome was descended from such freedmen, who were free but could not normally in NT times become citizens. Employment was regarded as demeaning for a free citizen - they could go into business, or farm their own land, or join the army or government, but were not supposed to hire themselves out to others for money.
In the case of a rich household engaged in trade or business a few of the slaves might be themselves very rich - the equivalent of the CEO of a major corporation these days. In some periods (including the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius) much of the business of Imperial government was carried on by some of Emperor's personal slaves who were in effect senior civil servants, but owed loyalty to the Emperor personally rather than the Republic. In Jesus's time the person who was the Roman equivalent of a modern day Whitehouse Chief of Staff in the USA, or a British Cabinet Secretary, was a slave. And also a very, very rich man.
Of course the majority of slaves were not of that kind of status. Most of them were domestic servants, field labourers, or manual workers, and probably had short and uncomfortable lives, with little in the way of personal autonomy.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb (to Peronel):
your post illustrates a point which I tend to find running through most feminist thinking: that men and women are interchangable and that the phsyiological is not seen as representative of anything higher.
This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? For example, in a residential children's home you would ideally want a mix of male and female social workers on each shift, precisely because they are different. But you wouldn't (or shouldn't)assume that any one woman would be better at the cooking and cleaning that any one man, not that any one man would be better at hill-walking and canoeing than any one woman.
Indeed. I suspect that even with everything else being equal, there are likely always to be more male engineers than female engineers because it does seem that men are more likely to think in that sort of way. However, at the moment, I think there are possibly women who could be engineers who do not think about it because it is seen as being a predominantly male field, although this is an improvement on 50 or so years ago when women couldn't be considered for it at all. Similarly (and perhaps less controversially), as there are regulations about height/fitness etc for firefighters, this is probably always going to be male dominated as a higher proportion of men will fit those criteria; of people who are 5'6"* or taller, more than 50% will be men at a guess.
Wasn't there a thread a while ago about astronauts and research that showed women tended to cope better in space (physically) than men and was there therefore good reason to only consider women to be astronauts?
Carys
*to pluck a height at random as I'm running late and so haven't got time to hunt to see if there is indeed a height restriction.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
yes, but...
... we are mixing up a number of different "inclusive language" projects and questions & your comments really only apply to one or two of them. A list might include:
- 1) Should we deliberatly alter Bible language in translation to suit our cultural or theological ideas? Most here would say "no" I think. I'm completely with IngoB here - wherever possible use male words when the original does and female when the original does and neutral when the original does.
- 2) Should we update older non-biblical texts in our own language to suit our ideas - should we edit old hymns or liturgies? My gut feeling is no, leave them alone if they still make sense. Just as I like the way we in the CofE have left the "thees" and "thous" in the BCP alone, and written new words for our new Common Worship liturgies. But its not a big deal.
- 3) When writing new texts, or making new songs and new prayers, should we use language that assumes that Christians are male? No, obviously not. There has been no exuse in English for this for a century (a reason why CW is better than older 20th century CofE liturgies)
- 4) Should we use male, neutra,l or female language about Jesus? It must be male. Jesus is a man and to use neutral words for him is very artificial in English and might tend to imply a disbelief in the reality of the Incarnation.
- 5) Should we use masculine or feminine grammatical gender when talking about about God? This is the hardest question. English commits us to using "he" or "she" in many circumstances. My feeling here is that we should take our cue from the Bible, which tends to use both masculine and neutral language about God (as comes naturally in the original languages) but sometimes (but rarely) feminine grammatical gender (especially about the Spirit of God and about Holy Wisdom)
- 6) Should we use male or female metaphors about God? Lots of recent songs and liturgies refer to God as a mother, or us other female metaphor and language. Again, if we take our cue from the Bible, most of the analogies are male, but some are female. So we can use either.
I think we are in closer agreement about point (1) than we seem to be. In fact the only person arguing for such change is Gordon Cheng who claims not to be! I probably hold theological opinions that are closer to his than are those of most posters on this thread, but one thing we disagree on is the roles of women and men in the church. And he is defending a mistranslation of the New Testament & other ancient documents in order to support his position. He wants to translate Greek and Hebrew words that really mean "human beings" into English words that mean "males" because that is closer to the views of his church.
And this thread really is about English. Languiages are different., We once had grammatical gender, we lost it. But there is a fossil of it in our pronouns and a few other words. So we have to take that into account when translating. People writing prayers or songs in French or Kiswahili or whatever no doubt face different issues. For Bantu languages do not distinguish between masculineand feminine grammatically- there is one word where we have "he" and "she" - but they often can distinguish between animate & inanimate, or human and other animal, or low status and high status, which will present translators with a whole load of choices and opportunities we don't have in English.
One last point - the idea that God is male is nonsense, and the idea that God is somehow masculine in a sense that is distinct from maleness is at least controversial (if it means anything at all) and some would say heretical. Language that seems to encourage those concepts of God, or to commit us to them, ought perhaps to be avoided. Even if, following the Bible, we mostly continue to use masculine pronouns and male metaphors about God, were I to come across someone who could never use female language about God, never call God "she" instead of "he", then I would wonder if they had not fallen into the heresy of thinking that God actually is male.
[fixed code]
[ 13. June 2005, 16:25: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people.
Dear Ruth,
At some point you described your position as "nuanced" (not going to hunt for it - the thread's too long).
Rightly or wrongly, I sense a tension between the liberal "of course I'm not going to force inclusive language on anyone" and the radical "moral imperative to change" aspects of your position.
The quote above is from your radical side. It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war, and that anyone who wills the end should therefore will the means.
Some of us don't will the means. Some of us see the "war" as an over-simplistic worldview which doesn't (for example) do justice to the views of those women who are not feminists.
I'm not trying to knock down a straw man here; just trying to explain how I can think that you're only half right on this issue...
Had the original proposition said "Is well-written inclusive language a good idea in cases where a significant element of the congregation feel distanced from the message of the gospel by traditional gendered language ?" then I'd say that you'd proved your point and the answer is "yes".
It's the radical "necessary" where we part company.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war
Another status quo inversion. To put it another way: non-inclusive language is a weapon being unconsciously wielded every day and we're asking you to take a little more thought and consider when/if and how far you could go towards laying it down.
It's not about starting a war, you see, but about ending it.
Posted by Phaedra (# 8385) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[*]5) Should we use masculine or feminine grammatical gender when talking about about God? This is the hardest question. English commits us to using "he" or "she" in many circumstances. My feeling here is that we should take our cue from the Bible, which tends to use both masculine and neutral language about God (as comes naturally in the original languages) but sometimes (but rarely) feminine grammatical gender (especially about the Spirit of God and about Holy Wisdom)
An alternative that's admittedly awkward, but strikes me as a good one, is not to use gender at all: use God and Godself instead of pronouns.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
quote:
Slight tangent, but within the remit of the thread. Over the weekend I took a blessing for 25 years of marriage for some old friends. They had put the service booklet together, using Common Worship. I was startled halfway through to find the response:
quote:Blessed are you, Lord Jesus Christ;
You have brought new life to mankind.
This startled me as I thought CW had been written on inclusive lines throughout. Can anyone who knows how it was put together (Charles Read?) explain how this slipped through?
Thanks for spotting this - it has now been incorporated into the latest draft of my PhD / book on inclusive language! I don't know how this got through, but I will ask around....
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Many thanks - I would be interested to know. (Given all the discusion we've been having here I nearly stumbled when I got to that point in the service. As a word on the page I hadn't noticed "mankind" at all; actually saying it was a bit of a shock.)
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
This shows a complete misinterpretation of what Peronel and also a very simplistic and inaccurate picture of feminism. Of course women and men are different. But how far are the differences intrinsic as opposed to being the result of social conditioning? And, crucially, how relevant are the differences when it comes to choosing certain careers? [/QB]
If I understand Peronal correctly, she was saying that gender is a non-issue when it comes to assessing whether she is a competant teacher or not. This I was not challenging. But the idea that gender is a non-issue when it comes to theology is a bit more problematic as this thread has pointed out, and I've found in my discussions with feminists that they bleed into each other.
Career-wise, it makes very little difference who does what, but move into theological territory, and God appears to have told his spokesmen differently. Why, is another issue.
In terms of whether this is simplistic, well yes, any 4 line paragraph isn't going to be conclusive Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes, and the feminism of the 70's was fairly outspoken about the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality, as sexuality wasn't seen as anything significant. Sex has no transcendant meaning, so it makes no difference who you sleep with. They also argued that the difference between the sexes was mostly cultural, and if that is true, what we need is re-education.
And this is where you misinterpret me I'm bouncing off Peronal's point to my own, as I pointed out in the previous post. I also did point it out as a tangent
As I come from a non-liturgical denomination, it's a bit tricky to say what I would do if I was in a position to write one, but my theology of men and women and their relationship, and their relationship with God would have to be taken into account. From all that I've read over the years however, it's not as simple as just replacing 'man' with 'personkind'. The creation of the Book of Common Prayer is a testament to the numerous factions that had to be accomodated before anyone was even vaguely happy. If it makes no theological difference, then go ahead, but theology is far more complicated than we imagine, and I'm leery of fiddling too much, conservative that I am.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
God appears to have told his spokesmen differently.
What she said to her spokeswomen might have been different again.
quote:
Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes
What, all of them? Even those semi-mythical lesbian separatists that some people love to hate?
quote:
and the feminism of the 70's was fairly outspoken about the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality
No it wasn't, most of it. That tended to come in later, & where it happened wasn't specifically feminist.
quote:
as sexuality wasn't seen as anything significant.
No, again. What political promotion of homosexuality & bisexuality there was came about precisely because "sexuality" - a new category no-one had ever though of before - was seen as significant.
quote:
Sex has no transcendant meaning, so it makes no difference who you sleep with.
Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to believe that sex has no "transcendant meaning" and yet that it does make a difference who you do it with. In fact I'd say that has been a very common position amongst Jews and later Christians since before the time of Christ.
And far from giving it "transcendant meaning" most of the early Church Fathers and much of mediaeval Christianity thoguht it was positively harmful and got in the way of a relationship with God and therefore had to be severly restricted.
quote:
They also argued that the difference between the sexes was mostly cultural, and if that is true, what we need is re-education.
"The" difference? Which difference? Reproductive, social, intellectual, economic, political? I don't remember anyone arguing that the difference in men's and women's ability to menstruate was learned.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
to distance myself from being female feels like I'm somehow capitulating to the centuries of rhetorical and real oppression of women, to Jerome and Augustine and all those assholes who didn't think women were really truly people in the same sense that men are people.
Dear Ruth,
At some point you described your position as "nuanced" (not going to hunt for it - the thread's too long).
Rightly or wrongly, I sense a tension between the liberal "of course I'm not going to force inclusive language on anyone" and the radical "moral imperative to change" aspects of your position.
The quote above is from your radical side. It says to me that there's a war on here, and that inclusive language is a weapon in that war, and that anyone who wills the end should therefore will the means.
Well, I didn't mean it to say there's a war on here. But I do get angry about this sometimes, and I was angry when I wrote that. After all, this is, among many other things, my life we're talking about here.
ETA: Once again, having read Flubb's most recent post, I feel like we're talking to people whose knowledge of feminism has been gleaned entirely from half-remembered media reports from some 30 years ago. This too makes me angry. Please go read six books by feminists writing today before you say another word about what feminists are trying to argue.
[ 13. June 2005, 16:55: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Flubb:
As I come from a non-liturgical denomination, it's a bit tricky to say what I would do if I was in a position to write one, but my theology of men and women and their relationship, and their relationship with God would have to be taken into account. From all that I've read over the years however, it's not as simple as just replacing 'man' with 'personkind'. The creation of the Book of Common Prayer is a testament to the numerous factions that had to be accomodated before anyone was even vaguely happy. If it makes no theological difference, then go ahead, but theology is far more complicated than we imagine, and I'm leery of fiddling too much, conservative that I am.
Two points -- in the parts of your post I have not quoted, you need to replace "feminists" with "some feminist" or "a few feminists" or, in some cases, "a couple of wingnuts".
And, relating to what I have quoted, the "personkind" way of dealing with language issues is a good 20-25 years out of date, and was rightly ridiculed even then by many people who wanted to deal with sexist language. If you're going to attack -- which may be fair enough -- try to make sure what you're attacking is real, not a caricaturish stereotype.
John
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Many thanks - I would be interested to know. (Given all the discusion we've been having here I nearly stumbled when I got to that point in the service. As a word on the page I hadn't noticed "mankind" at all; actually saying it was a bit of a shock.)
I had a similar experience in Lent 2004, when I tried a version of the draft "Times and Seasons" Way of the Cross service. I had copied text straight from the draft documents and hadn't proof checked them carefully enough. At the very end of the service I found myself saying:
quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed men for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.
The (female) curate looked at me sharply at that point - quite rightly in my opinion! I apologised afterwards and pointed out that if she wanted to spill blood, she should look to the Liturgical Commission, not me.
I'm assuming that the final form of Times and Seasons will have changed the text in question. Can anyone confirm that?
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Once again, having read Flubb's most recent post, I feel like we're talking to people whose knowledge of feminism has been gleaned entirely from half-remembered media reports from some 30 years ago.
Absolutely.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
I think this thread is an excellent illustration of strident maleists doing their utmost to preserve their status quo and the subjugation of women. The maleist agenda is attempting to return us to the days when women were chattel in a number of insidious ways.
Maleists are doing everything they can to keep women from working outside the home at all. These maleists are working for the day when women are no longer taught to read at allthus completely preventing them from reading the Bible and falling into error. The maleists oppose any form of birth control in any situation whatsoever, and have been avidly working to do away with domestic abuse laws. They’re planning to re-write the marriage ceremony to leave out the bride’s vows because women should be silent in church, so “I do” is an offense against Almighty God. The maleists insist on their male-only clubs and establishments because they need places to go where they can discuss rolling back the advances that have led to societal ills like votes for women and equal pay for equal work. Soon, the maleists will have pushed through legislation allowing daughters to be exposed at birth.
Wow, that sounds a little hysterical and over the top, doesn't it?
[ 13. June 2005, 19:15: Message edited by: Sienna ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
IngoB's post makes me realize that I should probably clarify that I'm of the "fidelity to the text" persuasion when it comes to Biblical translation, with explanatory footnotes when needed. <snip> It's in the liturgy I see the need for inclusive language - and the liturgy seems to be where exclusive language is most problematic.
I agree entirely. If the word in the Greek Scripture was "son" -- if indeed it was a word that indicated a male child, and not just because the word "offspring" had grammatical gender, but because a male child was meant, then I want the word translated as "son." Footnotes are good, for clarifying anything that might be misleading.
But where the word doesn't mean a male person -- like the word that means "people as opposed to animals" rather than "men as opposed to women," I don't want it translated mankind, not because I want an inclusive word, but because I want an accurate one. It just blows me a way that Gordon would say he prefers a less accurate translation because it fits his theology better.
In the liturgies, I think gender-neutral language is generally to be preferred for reasons of accuracy as well. But I can see an argument for going with an inclusive term in the liturgy, when a gendered term would be a more accurate translation (child instead of son, for example), because you can't footnote the liturgy. People hear what they hear, and there isn't an opportunity to say, "Well, yes, we said sons, but we meant people."
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Wow, that sounds a little hysterical and over the top, doesn't it?
No Sienna, that sounds perfectly reasonable. [Smiles nervously.] Now just put that meat cleaver down carefully - before anyone gets hurt.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
What else did you expect? All feminists are castrating, didn't you know?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Posted by J. J. Ramsey (# 1174) on
:
Just cross your legs and back away from the computer . . .
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
QUOTE]I had a similar experience in Lent 2004, when I tried a version of the draft "Times and Seasons" Way of the Cross service. I had copied text straight from the draft documents and hadn't proof checked them carefully enough. At the very end of the service I found myself saying:
quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed men for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.
The (female) curate looked at me sharply at that point - quite rightly in my opinion! I apologised afterwards and pointed out that if she wanted to spill blood, she should look to the Liturgical Commission, not me.
I'm assuming that the final form of Times and Seasons will have changed the text in question. Can anyone confirm that?
Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
No, she hasn't. It's really jarring to be going along absorbing the power and majesty of the liturgy and then be brought up short because you find you've been written right out of things.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It just blows me a way that Gordon would say he prefers a less accurate translation because it fits his theology better.
Well, consider yourself unblown. Accuracy in translation is extremely important. I've already suggested that I think "sons" is an accurate translation of "huios", and "man" is an accurate translation of "'adam". I understand the counter-arguments and think the balance remains in favour of the current language used by most modern English translations, with the exception of the NRSV and the TNIV. The RSV, ESV, TEV, NIV remain widely used English translations which would favour the view that I've been putting. Of these, the ESV is more important than NRSV and TNIV, neither of which have yet proven that they will be lasting in their impact.
The arguments for de-gendering the language of our translations remains highly contested by professional translators and those arguing for change have not managed to persuade the majority.
By the way, at no stage would I argue for a return to the AV (that is to say, the KJV), despite the beauty of its language. It is based on less accurate original texts and is close to incomprehensible for anyone who lacks a tertiary education.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Of these, the ESV is more important than NRSV and TNIV, neither of which have yet proven that they will be lasting in their impact.
Sorry, I think I meant to say that the ESV is more 'recent'. The NRSV hasn't sunk without a trace, but it would be fair to say that a major reason for its release, the use of de-gendered language where possible, doesn't seem to have been sufficient to persuade many people. The TNIV seems to be doing better in some circles, but has also benefitted from an extensive marketing campaign. The ESV has been independently published by a small company in the US and has achieved surprising popularity in just a few years. It is based on the old RV/RSV with some improvements, and more foreshadowed for subsequent editions.
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The arguments for de-gendering the language of our translations remains highly contested by professional translators and those arguing for change have not managed to persuade the majority.
I don't think anyone on this thread has been argueing for wholescale degendering of the bible. What we have been argueing is that today's liturgy and hymns should be written using gender inclusive language, because that best reflects how people speak and understand today.
What people have also been arguing is that is worth considering updating 'old' liturgy - especially the creed, the core statement of what we believe - because, as language has evolved, gender exclusive language means something different from what was originally intended. MOst have argued that, with old hymns, the damage to valued and loved poetry outweighs the gain in clarity.
So at best you're misunderstanding what a bunch of people have repeatedly said; at worst you're deliberately setting up a straw man in order to misrepresent the position of those who disagree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.
Try as I might, I can't read that passage in a way which applies to me. It talks about Christ, who ransomed men for God. A wonderful image, if you're a man. I'm not. So at best what this message conveys to me is that - by virtue of my gender - I'm an afterthought; at worst it implies that only men are ransomed so - logically - I am not. Either way, the message it conveys is profoundly excluding.
To get a sense of the disconnect try reading the passage thus:
quote:
You are worthy, O Christ, for you were slain;
for by your blood you ransomed women for God.
from every race and language, from every people and nation,
to make them a kingdom of priests
to stand and serve before our God.
Do you feel excluded? If so, you can maybe appreciate how that passage - beautiful as it is - reads to me.
Peronel
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Just an observation about something that's been said earlier on this thread about younger people and how they will fail to understand non-inclusive language [BTW, I recognise that others have asked me some questions I've not yet responded to, and just to let you know that I'm formulating my replies. I'm not deliberately ignoring you!].
I preach fairly often for a university church that's been going for about 18 months now. The question of sex roles is fairly low priority in our regular preaching, in fact to be honest I don't think it's been addressed directly by anyone in the 18 months that the church has been in operation. I tend to use traditional language (so-called 'non-inclusive') in my preaching, not because I feel myself to be making a point, I just do.
Most of those who attend, from a variety of cultural backgrounds (Anglo-Aussie, Asian, Buddhist...) are aged between 18 and 25, mainly female [it's a church attached to a school of health sciences]. No-one in the 18 months has complained about the way language has been used. Note it's not just 'cos I'm the big scary preacher. There is plenty of opportunity to comment to others, or to drop in an anonymous comment slip.
It's not a big point I'm making here, just that in a sample of highly intelligent and educated young churchgoers from a variety of backgrounds (but mainly female), the whole question of inclusive language just doesn't seem to be on the radar.
I personally would agree with them, that I don't think it is an issue that warrants the attention it gets in some circles.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Anyone who is more concerned about giving you a sharp look about one word rather than absorbing the power and majesty in that passage has simply lost the plot.
Let me explain a little....
I first encountered inclusive language liturgy at theological college. When I went there, it all seemed to me to be a bit OTT and I disliked the way that transgressions were jumped on heavily. BUT - when I went back home after the first year and went back to non-inclusive liturgy, I was surprised at what an impact it made on me. It was like being slapped across the face - and I'm a bloke!
When you have moved to inclusive language and got completely accustomed to it, encountering a random "men" really does stick out like a very sore thumb. It's nigh on impossible to ignore it - believe me. If that is what it does to me, just imagine how it feels for a woman to be in that position.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's not a big point I'm making here, just that in a sample of highly intelligent and educated young churchgoers from a variety of backgrounds (but mainly female), the whole question of inclusive language just doesn't seem to be on the radar.
Sure, maybe they just have other things to care about. For the umpteenth time, not all women want the same thing at the same time.
Out of curiosity, have they voiced any complaints at all about anything? If they've made critical comments about other things, your statement about their apparently not caring about inclusive language has more force. You should also consider the possibility that they've just made allowances for church being weird and different from the rest of the world.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
I'm trying to point out to Gordon that his examples of why I shouldn't get upset at having my horizons trimmed don't work. He says I shouldn't mind not being able to be a preacher because I don't mind not being able to be queen. I say that's not true.
I see. In which case the "could" needs to be nuanced -- he's saying you "can't" be a queen, which is a completely different sort of "cannot" than you can't be a minister/priest/whatever. The former because there are intrinsic things about queendom which you lack (namely, bloodline); the latter merely because of your gender.
I apologize my masculine mind was so slow in getting your point!
Regarding youth: My 15yo stepson had two of his schoolmates over this weekend to play Yu-Gi-Oh or one of those card games. One was female and one was male. The female responded to something he showed her (a "deck" I believe is the term) with the phrase, "Every card known to man."
I considered asking her if females consistently are aware of a different set of cards than males are, but decided it were better to let it go.
I wonder if she even thought about how her own speech excluded her from the class of knowers-about-cards? Either that or, being of the rather geeky persuation, and thus presumably a little smarter than your average 11th grader, perhaps she knew enough about the English language to know she wasn't?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
What is a "great translation" then? Or are we back at the "KJV-only" view?
Since I'm not from an Anglo-Saxon background, I have no emotions invested in the KJV. And concerning my other background, it would be "(Challoner-)Douay-Rheims-only" anyway. But clearly both cannot be called "great translations" anymore, since we know that they themselves are based on a far from perfect translation (the old Vulgate). Further, I've heard comments that even if we approve of the old Vulgate, then those two bibles are not great translations of the Latin (one of the reasons why there was an official re-translation by Ronald Knox). I own neither, although I may buy a (C)DR for historic interest one day.
I'm actually not a big bible translation expert. But when I looked for an English bible, I did look around for reviews to find out what would fit my preferences. I currently use the RSV-CE and New Jerusalem Bible, in German I would use the Herder translation or the Pattloch bible (Hamp, Kürzinger, Stenzel). I'm also a proud owner of a 1914 Allioli/Arndt Latin-German parallel bible, which is an excellent translation of the old Vulgate with commentary. I've been thinking of buying a REB with Apocrypha. I hope this sort of puts me on the map, without making big claims about knowing what the "best" translation is.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
And is not it better to read "The Message" than no Bible?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Do you mean "The Message" represents the majority of Bibles sold, or "a not very great translation" representing the majority sold? And which one would that be?
Well, I was more thinking of "The Message" plus "Good News Bible" plus "New Living Translation" plus perhaps (though with less problems) "(Today's) New International Version"...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A list might include: ...
ken, I perfectly agree with the content of your list, including the (tentative) answers you give.
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on
:
John: The 'personkind' wasn't actually a studied response, but the first thing that popped into my head, as I was talking with a woman this week at a wedding in a lovely anglican church (female vicar and all) who argued that she much preferred 'personkind' than 'mankind'. My apologies if this came across as a tar-brush.
RuthW - My contention is that much of the current situation is due to what happened before (surprise!). While what I've been saying may not be cutting edge, they are still not dead horses for all of us, even if some would like them to be Currently I've been reading Grudem (2004), Kemp and Squires (1997) Fiorenza (1984) Holloway (1991) Schroer and Bietenhard (2003) Carson (1998) and a number of others sitting on my shelf on the feminist/inclusive language debate, as it's not one i'm horrendously familiar with as some have so kindly pointed out. I also read de Beauvoir, Greer, Friedan, Steinem, Paglia, and a host of lesser knowns years ago, although I'm told, they are fairly old school by today's standards. They also set the scene (for the most part) for what would happen next, so I count them as fairly important. If you would like to suggest any more, I'll have a look to see if I could get hold of them.
Ken:
quote:
(me)
Yet, feminists have been quite outspoken in the need to obliterate the distinctions between the sexes
quote:
(You) What, all of them? Even those semi-mythical lesbian separatists that some people love to hate?
You are correct. Not all of them, some of them. Much of the Radical feminist movement is comprised of them. The issue to me is not how accepted these second wave spinoffs are (even by the mainstream feminist movement), but the effect they caused and cause. They still exist, they still have an effect on studies (even if still fairly small).
quote:
(me) and the feminism of the 70's was fairly outspoken about the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality
quote:
(You) No it wasn't, most of it. That tended to come in later, & where it happened wasn't specifically feminist.
www.now.org was arguing for it, and argues for it. It may not be specifically a feminist concern, but I'm was positing that it was due in part to the feminist movement that these issues were raised.
quote:
(me) Sex has no transcendant meaning, so it makes no difference who you sleep with.
quote:
(You) Nonsense. It is perfectly possible to believe that sex has no "transcendant meaning" and yet that it does make a difference who you do it with.
I think it is. So do some other people. We have no common ground here. Moot.
quote:
(me)They also argued that the difference between the sexes was mostly cultural, and if that is true, what we need is re-education.
quote:
(You)"The" difference? Which difference? Reproductive, social, intellectual, economic, political?
Buggrit, sorry, that's my bad: should read 'the differences between the sexes was mostly socialised'.
Anyway, as I said, I was wandering off on a tangent and have no desire to get further involved in what was just a passing comment. I wasn't trying to inculcate a new level of opprobrium for myself
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It's not a big point I'm making here, just that in a sample of highly intelligent and educated young churchgoers from a variety of backgrounds (but mainly female), the whole question of inclusive language just doesn't seem to be on the radar.
Sure, maybe they just have other things to care about. For the umpteenth time, not all women want the same thing at the same time.
I've heard and understood this. It wasn't really the point I was addressing. A number of people (not you, I believe) have implied or stated on this thread that anyone under the age of 30 finds the use of non-inclusive language incomprehensible. I'm just saying that among the 18-25 y.o. educated elite women at my 18 month old church, that assertion is not true.
quote:
Out of curiosity, have they voiced any complaints at all about anything? If they've made critical comments about other things, your statement about their apparently not caring about inclusive language has more force. You should also consider the possibility that they've just made allowances for church being weird and different from the rest of the world.
They are not 'complaining' people, but they are highly critical people —if you see the distinction I am making. They will pick up errors of logic in my sermon with great rapidity and will not hesitate to ask detailed questions about this both publicly and privately. Nicely though, so that I don't notice the bleeding from the gracious but logically irrefutable bitemarks for several hours. They are smarter than I am.
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Regarding youth: My 15yo stepson had two of his schoolmates over this weekend to play Yu-Gi-Oh or one of those card games. One was female and one was male. The female responded to something he showed her (a "deck" I believe is the term) with the phrase, "Every card known to man."
I considered asking her if females consistently are aware of a different set of cards than males are, but decided it were better to let it go.
I wonder if she even thought about how her own speech excluded her from the class of knowers-about-cards? Either that or, being of the rather geeky persuation, and thus presumably a little smarter than your average 11th grader, perhaps she knew enough about the English language to know she wasn't?
Will people please stop using the argument that some women don't notice/don't have a problem with/use themselves non-inclusive language to prove some sort of point.
Surely the question is: some people are indeed hugely offended and excluded. Some perhaps so much that it stops them understanding the gospel. What could/should we do about this?
Gordon: a slight point. The NRSV is now the proscribed text for theology undergraduates at Oxford, and several other English universities, so it should be making its mark amongst theologians, at least.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Gordon: a slight point. The NRSV is now the proscribed text for theology undergraduates at Oxford, and several other English universities, so it should be making its mark amongst theologians, at least.
That is interesting information, and it matches what I think I heard a few years ago, so I guess this is not a recent policy. When I left Melbourne they were recommending the NRSV (mid-late 90s) at Ridley College, the major Anglican evangelical college down there. Moore College in Sydney (Anglican, conservative evangelical) makes no formal recommendation, but the majority of students I think use NIV or ESV, similarly
Mary Andrews College .
(By the way, and simply as a matter of interest, in 2004 there were 60 female students studying theology fulltime at Moore; numbers of both men and women have increased substantially over the last decade and are projected to continue growing)
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
...The NRSV is now the proscribed text ... so it should be making its mark ...
That is interesting information, and it matches what I think I heard a few years ago...
prescribed, not proscribed. Sheesh! it's a thread about language, isn't it?
If it were proscribed, that would reduce its mark significantly.
BTW, NRSV has been the standard for Canadian Anglican churches for a number of years. It's not my favorite, as I find the word choice sometimes stilted and the rhythm rather leaden.
(If anyone wants to attack inclusive language on esthetic grounds, some of it - "personkind" - is a sitting duck.)
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
Okay, I've been following this for a while now, but lessee if I've got the argument pretty much to rights:
Is inclusive language really necessary?
No, but it's nice sometimes.
Questions? Comments? Other gratuitious Buffy references?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Spiffy, are you arguing that sexism is like a vampire and inclusive language like a stake? Hmmmm, you may be on to something.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Surely the question is: some people are indeed hugely offended and excluded. Some perhaps so much that it stops them understanding the gospel. What could/should we do about this?
Recognise that this is what they feel without either approving or disapproving ?
Change, where we can do so without causing offence to those who are attached to the "poetry" of traditional language ?
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
Is inclusive language really necessary?
No, but it's nice sometimes.
If by that you mean "considerate in certain situations", then yes.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Just coming back to some questions and comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
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.
“It is a wicked and perverse generation that seek a Sine”. Sine, I was not changing the subject, I was attempting to place the subject of frustrated desire in the midst of the context of life in a fallen world. But if you look further down this post, I have a bit of a go at the sort of answer that you appear to be looking for.
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. 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?
As an ordained (Anglican) priest, I don’t believe that a call to the ordained priesthood is essential. I don’t even know if it is usual. I wasn’t called. The Bible speaks of ‘call’; generally to be a Christian and sometimes to be an apostle, but I have difficulty seeing that what we call an ‘ordained priest’ matches up naturally to any of the New Testament categories of leadership. That said, I don’t think it is wrong to be ordained (obviously); but it is an idea that seems to include a number of leadership functions that are not unique to one office in the New Testament—if indeed we can even speak of tightly defined leadership offices in the NT, and I somehow doubt that we can.
Also, as someone working with evangelical presuppositions, the New Testament teaching about leadership (including elders/ presbyters/ deacons/ teachers/ apostles/ pastor-teachers/prophets/ etc.) looms fairly large in my thinking. A priest may perform all or some of these functions, occasionally they may perform none of them eg. they may end up as an administrator in diocesan head office, aka a bishop or archdeacon. Most priestly functions (including the administration of the sacraments) seem to me activities that a woman should, if able on other grounds, be able to perform with no theological obstacle.
So if one of my daughters were to come and say what you said, I would be needing to ask all sorts of questions about what she actually meant. What is a ‘call’? How does she know she is ‘called’? Why, if it is not something the Bible lends its authority to, does she feel compelled to obey this ‘call’? What exactly does she see herself being ‘called’ to? Teacing? Hospital visitation? School chaplaincy? I’m not trying to be awkward, it’s just that the basic assumptions with which we approach the questions of ‘call’, ‘priesthood’ and even ‘ordination’ are probably so contrasting that it is difficult not to be talking at cross-purposes.
However in an effort to avoid being gently baked, boiled and basted by Sine for dodging the question yet again: I think I would be trying to work out exactly what it was that my daughter wanted to do, and why. Then I would be talking to her about questions of character and ability. I believe that anything that a man can do in the church, a woman can do, with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder (which I would be arguing on the basis of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11). But that wouldn’t stop her from teaching in other contexts or exercising leadership, and if she wanted to, and had the ability and character and the Christian maturity, I would be absolutely delighted and would encourage her in whatever way I could.
As for ordination to the priesthood, I am not even sure if men should be seeking this as an essential prerequisite of corequisite of Christian ministry. I’m a Protestant—I believe in the priesthood of all believers. So any argument I might offer for or against what we Anglicans call ‘priestly orders’ would be lukewarm, and would revolve around fairly mundane and pragmatic questions like security of employment, career path, organisational support, superannuation, long service leave and so forth. Providing it didn’t necessarily entail leadership or teaching of mixed congregations or sole senior eldership, I can’t see why it should be a problem. But generally when people speak of priesting, they assume those activities as part of the package, so I would explain why I thought such a move might be unwise.
I hope that doesn’t all sound too evasive, it’s not meant to be.
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
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.
The pilot example is so difficult for me to envisage that I am not even sure I can begin to answer. Why wouldn’t I believe women can be pilots? It’s a bit like suddenly discovering that God wants all people to wear red hats with pom-poms at Christmas time. I can imagine myself thinking it, I suppose, but so far is it from any biblical principle or what I know of the character of God as revealed in Scripture that it is hard to begin to think how I might even mount an argument for it.
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).
[Hence the Queen example. Most of us have the ability to be Queen; it’s very hard to see how we couldn’t. Most of us, for reasons of birth, never can be. Actually, even those who have the ability to be President of the US can never be, for reasons of birth. Ability is not the issue in these cases either]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains.
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.
By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Gordon,
quote:
...women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men...
Out of curiosity, how far do you go with this belief? As a man, would you boycott the writings of (for example) St Teresa of Ávila, St Hildegard of Bingen or St Julian of Norwich? If not, why not?
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike. If this principle were applied across the board, you would have no female lecturers in universities, no women running large companies, and no female Prime Ministers or Presidents (talk of Thatcher would be a distraction here). If gender really means that women should not hold such positions within the Church, why is it different outside?
I've never met anyone who would argue that this priciple holds true for the world as a whole - is the Ship going to surprise me again?
(BTW I agree with the consensus that has emerged over Bible translation. If you want to do detailed study you want a version that reflects the original text as closely as possible, with copious footnotes on nuance, unless you can go back to the original Hebrew and Greek. For that kind of work the RSV would be my preferred starting point. I have used the NRSV and didn't like it all either for serious study or as a text to read. Liturgy is a very different matter, as the relationship you have with it is not normally of that academic nature.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
prescribed, not proscribed. Sheesh! it's a thread about language, isn't it?
If it were proscribed, that would reduce its mark significantly.
Actually if it were proscribed at universities it would probably be much more widely read, students being what students are.
[ 14. June 2005, 15:14: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).
Sadly, a pile of crap is a pile of crap in any language. I've never really understood why people feel that the personal opinion of Paul is 'the Word of God'. I recognise your right to maintain this position, but I'm losing the struggle to respect it.
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).
Oh Gordon, I am pleased to help you out with this one. And do I really need to state my position is one of St. Paul was a good guy, but he ain't no Jesus, and cleverly glossed over the other Creation story what had men and women created at the same time?
11 A man should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a man to teach or to have authority over a woman; he must be silent.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Spiffy - spiffing!!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As for ordination to the priesthood, I am not even sure if men should be seeking this as an essential prerequisite of corequisite of Christian ministry. I?m a Protestant?I believe in the priesthood of all believers.
Careful here... the priesthood of all believers is a participation of the whole church in the priesthood of Christ. Which is of course a sacrificial priesthood connected to the old Temple priesthood - and before that to the priesthood every patriarch excercised in his own household. We can easily make Biblical arguments for that sacrificial priesthood being a male province - as it remains, for it belongs to Jesus Christ and we only reminin in it as we remain in him.
The priesthood we ordain individual people to is eldership within the church - a human office (though perhaps instituted by Jesus Christ, and certainly by the Apostles). And it is much the same office as that of, say, a Methodist or Baptist minister. The biblical equivalents to it are not temple priests but the elders of the synagogue.
If you are a good Sydney Protestant you ought not to be mixing them up, because that leads to the idea that Christian priesthood is an ontological change of state, rather than a role or an office or a function. And that way lies Rome...
quote:
The pilot example is so difficult for me to envisage that I am not even sure I can begin to answer. Why wouldn?t I believe women can be pilots? It?s a bit like suddenly discovering that God wants all people to wear red hats with pom-poms at Christmas time. I can imagine myself thinking it, I suppose, but so far is it from any biblical principle or what I know of the character of God as revealed in Scripture that it is hard to begin to think how I might even mount an argument for it.
But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...
quote:
The key to understanding why women shouldn?t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn?t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order
Except that that doesn't seem obvious to many of us either from Scripture or from our personal experience
quote:
as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains.
Does it?
I'd try to read it literally.
quote:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
So perhaps should we all
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
Nor did he. Nor does the Archbishop of Sydney, or the Pope. But God does, at least sometimes, because he called Deborah to judge Israel. And raised up many women to be prophets, in old and new testament times (& maybe since). So even if in general, on the whole, most of the time, it is God's will that men are in charge and women subordinate we cannot say of any particular woman who claims to be called to eldership "go away, you must have made a mistake, God doesn't do that" because we know that God, at least sometimes, does.
quote:
(BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).
I am not at all sure what the next bit means at all, inclusive or not. Neither are most translators, as nearly every version I've seen explains in footnotes.
quote:
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing ? if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Apparently "saved through childbearing" has the same ambiguity in Greek as it does in English (even ignoring the possibility that it could be metaphorical). And are we to understand that "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety" institutes salvation through works for women?
Posted by Peronel (# 569) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike. If this principle were applied across the board, you would have no female lecturers in universities, no women running large companies, and no female Prime Ministers or Presidents (talk of Thatcher would be a distraction here). If gender really means that women should not hold such positions within the Church, why is it different outside?
I've never met anyone who would argue that this priciple holds true for the world as a whole - is the Ship going to surprise me again?
I think you could certainly argue that this should apply to the ship.
We have female leaders (Erin, RuthW, Viola) and women are allowed to preach/argue/yell/rant/pray with the best of them. And *gasp* there are vulnerable men reading who might be corrupted by us, as Eve corrupted Adam.
So I wonder why Gordon is still participating in a community that - riddled as it is with vocal women - is obviously beyond the theological pale. Maybe we can make him disappear in a fit of indignation, much in the manner of Elder Moroni and his underwear.
Peronel.
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
quote:
with the exception of teaching men or mixed congregations or holding the position of sole senior elder
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike.
As the creator of the world, God knows how we were made to function best and that includes in terms of sexual behaviour. For Christians, to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must. For non-Chrisitans, it is clearly benefical for them to live in accordsnce with how their creator made them but its not a matter of compulsion. How would that work anyway? But to live that way is supreme common sense quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The key to understanding why women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men is that the issue of such leadership and teaching doesn’t rest on ability or character (though such things are certainly not irrelevant) but on the created order, as 1 Tim 2:11-15 explains. (BTW, and attempting to at least give a nod to the actual thread topic I am not at all sure what an inclusive language version of this passage would look like).
Sadly, a pile of crap is a pile of crap in any language. I've never really understood why people feel that the personal opinion of Paul is 'the Word of God'. I recognise your right to maintain this position, but I'm losing the struggle to respect it.
Sad how you feel the need to resort to abuse rather than putting up a coherent argument. It seems to me that if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God then anything is up for grabs and this becomes a meaningless argument without any real reference points.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
quote:
quote:
This is a position I recognise and respect, although disagreeing with it deeply. One of the (many) problems I have with it is its inconcistency. On the whole ethics applies across the board. If you believe that sex outside marriage is wrong (say) you believe it is wrong for Christian and non-Christian alike.
As the creator of the world, God knows how we were made to function best and that includes in terms of sexual behaviour. For Christians, to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must. For non-Chrisitans, it is clearly benefical for them to live in accordsnce with how their creator made them but its not a matter of compulsion. How would that work anyway? But to live that way is supreme common sense
Oh dear. I'm doing a Ph.D at the moment and my supervisor is female. Should I give her the old heave-ho and insist they find me a bloke on the grounds that "to live in accordance with God's pattern in creation is an absolute must" and "supreme common sense"? I realise that the heathen in their blindness put up with such iniquity on the grounds that what matters is producing a decent piece of research at the end of the day but should I let my actions be determined by such carnal considerations? Should I make a stand for Gospel values or keep my head down and wait until the Republic of Gilead seizes power?
Yours aye,
Confused of Gormenghast.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Sad how you feel the need to resort to abuse rather than putting up a coherent argument. It seems to me that if you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God then anything is up for grabs and this becomes a meaningless argument without any real reference points.
Either you believe that the Bible is 'the word of God' or you believe it's the words of men who were occasionally / always / often mistaken. These are a priori assumptions. You can't really argue it one way or the other because, as you say, there are no reference points in that area.
But, to return to the original - the argument being put forward now, it seems, by many 'traditionalist' male posters is that non-inclusive language is, in fact, OK, because actually men are of higher status than women. As ordered by God. As it says in the Bible. That's very different from the earlier arguments: "of course everyone knows we're all equals now, so non-inclusive language does no harm. Why do you nasty aggressive feminists have to make such a fuss about such a small matter?" At least that line of 'reasoning' (if that's what it can be called) has been shown to be completely phoney.
[ 14. June 2005, 20:44: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Dear Confused of Gormenghast:
Any school with a PhD program that would allow women to supervise male Ph.D. candidates is of the devil. The only sure bet for the safety of your soul is to drop out entirely, as your research has been tainted anyway.
On a more serious note, I'm wondering, TUC, if you apply these principles in your daily life. Would you take a class from a woman? Would you take a job where you had a female boss? Would you consider yourself exempt from a legal verdict if rendered by a woman judge because she shouldn't have authority over you? If not, how do you justify your rejection of a way of life that is "supreme common sense"?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But, to return to the original - the argument being put forward now, it seems, by many 'traditionalist' male posters is that non-inclusive language is, in fact, OK, because actually men are of higher status than women. As ordered by God.
I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters. Ok, I'm not a traditionalist male poster, but I was earlier being fairly conservative on the changing of traditional language in all circumstances and I strongly, completely and utterly disagree with Gordon on this one. In fact, he's pushing me more towards inclusivist langauge. But I like the word mankind and I don't feel excluded by it!
Carys
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Gordon,
quote:
...women shouldn’t lead mixed congregations or teach men...
Out of curiosity, how far do you go with this belief? As a man, would you boycott the writings of (for example) St Teresa of Ávila, St Hildegard of Bingen or St Julian of Norwich? If not, why not?
No I'd read all those folks. And Confused of Gormenghast can keep his supervisor AFAIC. All these extrapolations are unnecessary. Women can be monarchs, presidents, CEOs, bishops. Why not? Aren't you all just popping up said extrapolations in order to make the position that I actually uphold seem even more foolish in the eyes of the world than it actually is? Unless you happen to be the government, why introduce restrictions where the Bible introduces none? Priscilla and Aquila discipled Apollos. Next you'll be telling me that I think that's wrong.
I have limited computer access today so I may just come back in several hours and learn from your ingenious reconstructions what else it is that I'm supposed to believe. This will make the job of trying to think through my position a great deal easier, as you will have done most of the hard work for me.
Whether or not I will agree with the new me, as revealed by these boards, is an entirely different question.
Posted by Demas (# 7147) on
:
For what it's worth, making Ginga Queen of England is a small matter of changing the Act of Settlement 1701.
We long ago gave up the idea that Monarchs are inherently special.
Gordon: Is preaching before men the only thing that both men and women are physically and mentally capable of doing but God forbids women from doing? Or are there others?
What do you read "having authority over men" as meaning?
[ 15. June 2005, 00:55: Message edited by: Demas ]
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on
:
When I was a kid and going to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the church needed a teacher for high school Sunday School. Finally, my mother said she would do it. The powers-that-be told her that she could not do that because all the members of that class were confirmed, so they were all adults in the eyes of the church. Teaching that class would be "having authority over men," meaning 14- to 17-year-old boys.
She told them where to get off and has not volunteered in any church function since then. That was 30 years ago. Just think of all the lost volunteer time that has cost her congregations over the years . . . .
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
When I was a kid and going to a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, the church needed a teacher for high school Sunday School.....
HE-hehehehehe. Finally, a chance to feel Evil.
I'm an LCMS woman teaching confirmation class, no less.
Oh, and did I say I wrote the sermons?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
All these extrapolations are unnecessary. Women can be monarchs, presidents, CEOs, bishops. Why not? Aren't you all just popping up said extrapolations in order to make the position that I actually uphold seem even more foolish in the eyes of the world than it actually is?
No, we're trying to point out that your position is inconsistent.
Flubb: It doesn't sound as if you need reading suggestions from me. Given your reading list, though, I'm surprised at your previous caricature of feminism. Where on its website is NOW going on about "the need to inculcate the wonders of bisexuality and homosexuality"? I couldn't find anything of the sort. That NOW is against discrimination against bisexuals and homosexuals is of course entirely appropriate and not at all inculcating the wonders of anything.
Gordon: Glad to hear that your female parishioners are not shrinking violets. (You may thank feminists that they are getting a university education.)
Spiffy: I disagree with the idea that inclusive language is merely nice. Sometimes it is necessary.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I would love to agree that you are an evil, evil woman, Lamb Chopped, but sadly I'd have to say you may be still toeing the line in a way nitpickers can appreciate.
- Since you are teaching the unconfirmed, technically you are teaching infants in Christ so even that 70 year old geezer who wandered in from whatever Godforsaken corner of the Kingdom he started from, I guess he is still technically not an adult male in Christ according to LCMS.
- And unless you get to preach the sermons you still don't hold authority over men in your church.
Tcha. You'll just have to try harder to be a reprobate.
Posted by The Undiscovered Country (# 4811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Dear Confused of Gormenghast:
Any school with a PhD program that would allow women to supervise male Ph.D. candidates is of the devil. The only sure bet for the safety of your soul is to drop out entirely, as your research has been tainted anyway.
On a more serious note, I'm wondering, TUC, if you apply these principles in your daily life. Would you take a class from a woman? Would you take a job where you had a female boss? Would you consider yourself exempt from a legal verdict if rendered by a woman judge because she shouldn't have authority over you? If not, how do you justify your rejection of a way of life that is "supreme common sense"?
The point I was I was answering was the one in relation to sexual relationships. I was not suggesting that women could not be managers/leaders etc. in non-church settings. The only biblical restriction I see on women in leadership in the church relates to having formal eldership roles and teaching on core foundational doctrinal issues. Those are not issues that are likely to arise in non-church settings.
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on
:
Gordon, I think most of the extrapolations (and certainly Confused in Gormenghast's agony aunt question) were in response to TUC's post, not yours.
But I do think it's legitimate to inquire about the extent to which a belief that women are to be subordinate in marriage and in church as part of God's divine order is applied by those holding that belief in non-marital and non-church settings.
I think we can all agree that we're called to apply our ethics and principles in all parts of our life, not just marriage or our church (which is something to be thankful for, I suppose). For example, I'm supposed to love my neighbor in the next cubicle as well as my neighbor in the pew. So, how do your beliefs about issues of gender and authority play out in the office, school, neighborhood watch, etc.? Or do you believe that Paul's comments apply only within marriage and a faith community, and aren't for application in other spheres of life? That seems to create its own different set of problems.
How do you draw a distinction between not allowing a woman to teach men from the pulpit or in a classroom but allowing a woman to instruct men from the printed page? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm trying to understand how a written explanation of doctrine is not "teaching" when the spoken explanation of that doctrine would be. I'm getting a sense the answer may be in your use of the word "discipled" as distinct from "teaching" but could you unpack that for me? I see an awful amount of overlap between the two. Or perhaps I'm missing your point entirely....
I'm not trying to create a "new you" or make you look ridiculous (but I will cop to making fun of Flubb's post on feminism being responsible for inculcating the wonders of homosexuality, etc.) I'm really trying to understand how your theology with respect to gender relations plays out in real life.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
I think we can all agree that we're called to apply our ethics and principles in all parts of our life, not just marriage or our church (which is something to be thankful for, I suppose). For example, I'm supposed to love my neighbor in the next cubicle as well as my neighbor in the pew. So, how do your beliefs about issues of gender and authority play out in the office, school, neighborhood watch, etc.? Or do you believe that Paul's comments apply only within marriage and a faith community, and aren't for application in other spheres of life? That seems to create its own different set of problems.
How do you draw a distinction between not allowing a woman to teach men from the pulpit or in a classroom but allowing a woman to instruct men from the printed page? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm trying to understand how a written explanation of doctrine is not "teaching" when the spoken explanation of that doctrine would be. I'm getting a sense the answer may be in your use of the word "discipled" as distinct from "teaching" but could you unpack that for me?
As far as I can see, the speciific prohibitions against women teaching are made in congregational contexts and refer to public teaching.
Your point is well made, ie that the principles we are discussing ought to be applied in other contexts and not hermetically sealed into the one setting.
But in saying this, we also have to do justice to the instances in Scripture where clearly women are given leadership or teaching roles: Priscilla (alongside Aquila, her husband), Deborah (OT Judge), Lemuel's mother in the book of Proverbs, older women teaching younger women ... a number of instances, in other words, where women not only teach and/or lead lead but seem to be actively encouraged to do so. in 1 Corinthians 14 women prophesy.
I am not saying that each and every one of these examples is clear to us, either as to what exactly was going on (eg what is 'prophecy'?) or as to the application. But equally, I wouldn't be wanting to write those passages off as unusual or exceptional, although the Deborah story has some very odd aspects to it. I am saying those passages need to be weighed seriously. (Discussion as to specific meaning is probably for another thread or for Kerygmania).
Hence the apparent lack of consistency in what I am suggesting the application of Scripture should be to the question of what contexts women are free to teach in. I want to argue strongly against a legalistic universal solution (eg something like "you may teach males until the age of 18, or if they're confirmed until they're 15" just doesn't cut it for me, even though one particular church may adopt this as their practice), and argue instead for the principle of Christian liberty. "All things are lawful for me" is a Christian principle of liberty stated in 1 Corinthians 6:12. It is modified by understanding how such a principle might be applied in a way that is "beneficial". But it's not wise to make universal rules about specific application where the Bible makes none.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters.
No, neither would I. There are at least three others posting on this thread. One, two, three, many, as Pratchett's trolls might say. They are doing their best to cut the middle ground out from under the feet of people like you and Callan. FWIW I don't have a problem with 'mankind' either and I love the beauty of the BCP. I just can't say the words any more - and that's not entirely because of exclusive language, though it is a part of it.
I think we now need to start talking about in what ways inclusive language might be necessary. Several of the MTs (male traditionalists) have talked about how all the 'difficulties' (which, of course, they don't really see as difficulties) can be got around by proper understanding, acquired through diligent study. Although that in itself is questionable, I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.
Yes. And similarly for the exploration of inconsistencies. Not just for the uncommitted outside the church, but for young people growing up in the church who may be exploring commitment. "Why" questions are important.
Remember the Seven Last Words of the Church.
"WE'VE NEVER DONE IT THIS WAY BEFORE".
Why shouldn't the Spirit of God be in the questioning of the young and the uncommitted?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I would not say that Gordon Cheng is many posters.
No, neither would I. There are at least three others posting on this thread. One, two, three, many, as Pratchett's trolls might say.
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention.
Carys
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
As far as I can see, the speciific prohibitions against women teaching are made in congregational contexts and refer to public teaching.
I find this appeal to "context" interesting. Which context is allowable and which isn't?
Concerning the issue of St Paul's references to women teaching and having authority over men, one context is what Paul is writing about in the specific letter. Another context is what he writes elsewhere. Yet another context is the whole NT canon (and even the OT - although that throws up considerable difficulties in my opinion).
A still wider context is that of the society of the time and the assumptions and character of Paul himself as a Jew living in a specific time. This context (ISTM) is that he instinctively saw women in leadership as being plain wrong. If we understand him in this context, why cannot we say something along the lines of "In that time and place, his comments were understandable. However, we have moved on since then in our understanding - and because we now have a different context, it is perfectly legitimate to come to different conclusions"
So I think your appeal to context is a very slippery slope - for it is pretty much the same appeal that most of those in favour of women in leadership would take.
(BTW - I'm still not convinced by your appeal to context anyway in this matter. Paul's argument is not that women are OK to teach and have authority as long as it's not in the Church. His argument is that women in positions of such authority is just plain wrong and unnatural)
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention?
Well, I would include Flubb and Russ in this group.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I would suggest that the main reason inclusive language is necessary is for reaching the uncommitted: for evangelism, in fact.
There may be individuals for whom this argument works, but as a generalization it fails dismally, at least according to Australian figures. Australia-wide, the churches that are growing are biblically conservative and/or pentecostal. The churches that are shrinking are liberal. Generally speaking it is the conservative, growing parishes that will use traditional language, and the liberal shrinking ones that insist on inclusive language.
Over the last 30 years I have been associated with many churches in Sydney and Melbourne. The fastest growing in terms of evangelistic growth were university congregations where both theology and language were conservative. The church plant I am currently involved in has seen individuals becoming Christians.
I actually don't know of any growing liberal churches in Sydney. I am sure they are there but they don't really register in the consciousness of the city.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
My questions to Gordon seem to have got lost - so I'll ask them again!
quote:
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.
By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!
And The Undiscovered Country said:
quote:
The point I was I was answering was the one in relation to sexual relationships. I was not suggesting that women could not be managers/leaders etc. in non-church settings. The only biblical restriction I see on women in leadership in the church relates to having formal eldership roles and teaching on core foundational doctrinal issues. Those are not issues that are likely to arise in non-church settings.
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me - and I would suggest that 'university congregations' can hardly be regarded as typical - but where are the conservative chuches recruiting from? My guess is that there are huge groups of people out there that the churches are just not reaching. Some people can no longer hear what the church is saying. Part of that is to due with the prevailing culture, but a big part IMHO is also to do with the language used.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
My questions to Gordon seem to have got lost - so I'll ask them again!
quote:
Gordon, have you ever read "I suffer not a woman...." by Kroeger and Kroeger? It is a very erudite and careful examination of the 1 Timothy passage.
By the way, do you ever go to bed? You seem to post all hours of night and day!
Sorry Nicodemia, they did get lost. The first question: I can't recall that I have read that specific text, but I have heard many good and persuasive arguments why the 1 Tim passage doesn't say what I still think it says. The best from an evangelical perspective was the argument that there is a specific Ephesian problem that Paul refers to, the "doctrine of demons" mentioned in 1 Tim 4:1 and again (possibly) 1 Ti 5:15 where "younger widows" have been led astray, hence the odd-sounding solution of 1 Tim 2:15 the woman "will be saved through childbearing". Thus Paul is addressing a purely local issue.
It is an ingenious reconstruction but I don't find that I'm persuaded by it, and if this was Kerygmania I'd give you the blow-by-blow on exactly why.
As for your second question, I thought it was rhetorical! But seeing as how you ask again, I am generally the one who gets up in the middle of the night when our girls cry, and so I sometimes find time to shoot off the odd angry post at 4 am. And during the rest of the day I am chained to a computer for my work as an editor, and sadly the brain continues to whirr out of hours too.
[ 15. June 2005, 11:03: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Gordon, the Kroeger and Kroeger book bases its theories on firstly Greek grammar regarding the word authentein (I think that's right, without dashing upstairs to dig the book out!) and secondly on the Pagan worship of female godesses in Ephesus. Its quite a large book, and frankly, there is more about pagan worship than I really want to know, but it is well worth reading.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The Undiscovered Country is one, who are the other two of that 'at least three'? Have I just not been paying attention?
Well, I would include Flubb and Russ in this group.
Oh dear, I must be doing a miserable job of communicating my views then.
If we're doing groups, then my reading is that:
The Undiscovered Country and Gordon Cheng are Protestants who believe that women cannot fulfil certain church functions because a plain reading of the Bible says so;
IngoB is a Catholic who believes that women cannot fulfil certain church functions because the Vatican's interpretation of church Tradition says so;
Mousethief is orthodox Orthodox who believes that it's untraditional for women to fulfil certain church functions and that's good enough;
Against these, Peronel, RuthW, Qlib and Nicodemia self-identify with the label "feminist", believing that women have had a rough deal through history and that all persons of goodwill should distance themselves from this historical oppression (because it isn't quite dead yet) by adopting inclusive language;
although each person's position is of course more subtle and nuanced than this brief sketch can possibly convey.
I tend to a liberal broad-church Anglican view that, whilst women are self-evidently capable, what is necessary is for the Church to encompass both feminists and traditionalists, without becoming a creature of either.
Which means trying to disagree with each "side" at the point where their view involves imposing on those of the opposite persuasion.
I'd rather stand with Carys on the importance of the aesthetics of language and not butchering much-loved hymns.
(With apologies to those unmentioned whose views I'm too lazy to go back and summarize)
Best wishes all - I'm off on holiday so won't be around for a couple of weeks.
Russ
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Well, I'm sorry if you feel traduced, Russ, and I recognise that you're not as hardline as Gordon & Co. but I'm afraid the unnecessary and uncalled-for repetition of Chesterton's old libel meant you were marked down as irredeemably hostile in my eyes. But maybe it was just a momentary lapse of judgement?
Have a good break.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Gordon, the Kroeger and Kroeger book bases its theories on firstly Greek grammar regarding the word authentein (I think that's right, without dashing upstairs to dig the book out!)
I am familiar, if not with the book you cite, with a number of the arguments concerning the word "authentein". Here is the TNIV's rendering of the verse in question (TNIV being one of the inclusive language Bible translations I mentioned earlier):
quote:
1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority* over a man; she must be quiet.
(*that is, 'authentein' in the Greek — see the whole passage, with footnotes, in the TNIV translation here)
BTW, I'm impressed by the TNIV's translation of this verse: it’s especially good to see that they have been consistent by using the word ‘quiet’ rather than ‘silent’ to translate the Greek ‘hesuchia’, it’s the same word that is applied to everybody in 1 Ti 2:2
quote:
or kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet* life, godly and dignified in every way.
(*that is, 'hesuchion' in the Greek)
So the consistent translation of 'hesuchia' as 'quiet' just makes much more sense all round.
Back to 'authentein'.
The TNIV footnotes suggest as alternatives: quote:
Or ‘teach a man in a domineering way’; or ‘teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man’.
The first footnote alternative suggests that it is quite OK for women to have authority over a man, so long as it is not ‘domineering’ authority. This view of the word ‘authentein’ has been put to me over the years by a number of people who would like to see women permitted to teach publicly in mixed congregations. It is hard to be certain either way, however, as quite apart from the fact that the majority of translators remain unconvinced (at least, of those who worked on the major recent English Bible translations) this is the only occurrence of the word “authentein” in the entire Greek New Testament.
It’s rather hard to mount an argument on purely linguistic grounds when you have only one occurrence of the word in the Pauline corpus, and none at all in the rest of the NT.
As well as this, I must say that in this context 'domineering authority' is a rather sexist way of interpreting the word ‘authentein’. We know from other passages that Paul insists that no-one, either male or female, should exercise domineering authority. Yet in 1 Timothy 2, on this view, it is only the women who have this problem! (Note this is not ascribing sexism to Paul, a view that many contributors to this thread would be only to happy to do, but rather to the cultural reconstruction that requires us to assume that it is only the women at Ephesus who suffered from the problem of being bossy)
For comparison, the NRSV, also gender inclusive, has
quote:
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.
See the text with footnotes here. This is not as good a translation of the verse, for reasons I just outlined.)
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
Sorry for double-post, but in an effort to mudwrestle this thread back on to topic, here is an interesting link on the NRSV which records some of the disquiet of the NRSV translators concerning the inclusive language policy. A quote concerning one of the translators:
quote:
J.J.M. Roberts, another member of the NRSV translation committee, later published an article in which he protested against the "tyrannical and arbitrary authority" assumed by the final editorial committee which had been elected to revise the translation for "stylistic consistency":
... the members of this editorial committee understood their task as involving a far greater authority to revise the translation than the full committee ever intended. According to Dentan [one of the five members of the committee], 'This editorial committee was given power to determine the final form of the text before publication.' Such a formulation is dangerously ambiguous. What the full committee understood and intended as the task of the editorial committee was actually quite limited; while respecting the basic work of the full committee, the editorial committee was expected to make the relatively minor changes to the finished product that were necessary for the sake of stylistic consistency. At least in the case of the Old Testament editorial subcommittee, that is not what happened. Some hint of the far more intensive reworking carried out by this small committee ... can be seen in Dentan's account of non-scholarly consideration that colored their work ... the editorial committee made thousands of changes, some quite substantive, to the translation of the Old Testament made by the full committee, and when members of the full committee became aware of the extent of these changes, many were outraged, feeling that much of their own work on the translation over the years had been irresponsibly gutted."
If you click through to the link I gave, you can poke around the footnotes for yourself and discover the views of some of the translators with links to articles that they wrote. Here is one of those footnotes, reproducing a highly annoyed quote from a respected liberal scholar:
quote:
And for good measure we will note the remarks of Robert Jewett, professor of New Testament at Garrett-Northwestern Theological Seminary. Jewett is himself a liberal, and a supporter of the feminist cause, but he insists upon the obligation of liberal scholars to behave honestly in translating the Bible. Regarding the NRSV he says: "We're facing, with the NRSV, liberal dishonesty in spades. The modern liberated perspective which imposes itself on the text is about as dishonest as you can be. All the way through the NRSV, implying that Paul has all these liberated concepts and so forth like the current politically correct person in an Ivy League school: I mean that's just ridiculous. Here you have the imposition of liberal prejudice on the biblical text with the ridiculous assumption that our modern liberal views were Paul's." Against the specious arguments offered by apologists for these politically correct alterations, Jewett declares that a gender-neutral translation that claims to be accurate is "almost as bad as Stalin's revisions of world history in which every 10 years he'd change all the history textbooks." These remarks were published in WORLD magazine, vol. 16, no. 6 (Feb. 13, 1998).
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
in an effort to mudwrestle this thread back on to topic
I thought we'd accepted the need for Bibles (at least the more academic ones) to be as close as possible to the original language. Isn't the topic here inclusive language in liturgy?
Posted by John H (# 9599) on
:
Just out of curiousity - and I hope this isn't regarded as going OT - I've been semi-following this discussion for the past few days, and was wondering if the views of any of the active participants in the discussion have changed or significantly developed in the course of the discussion? Or is this thread maybe destined for here?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Thanks, Gordon, for the links, quotes and other opinions on the Kroeger's book. I think it all goes to prove that it is a tricky verse, and subject, and not so black and white as some (not necessarily on the Ship) would have us believe!
However, I did follow The Undiscovered Country's post with this remark:-
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
I'm hoping someone will answer that!!
And yes, I think the Bible should reflect the context in which it was written, though there are still some dodgy translations from gender neutral into male-speak which can have a malign influence on readers!
But the liturgy is different. Surely it should reflect the congregation, modern views of gender and the place of women?
I can read the Bible knowing that women were regarded as nothing. I don't see why I should have to go to church and start thinking "I am a woman, and its OK to be one, its just that men think they are the ultimate in the creation, etc. etc." when I should be able to concentrate on worshipping God, and bringing myself to him as I am.
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...
Thanks Ken. You got there before me and used fewer words than I would have.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ginga:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But its a metaphor Gordon. An example. An illustration. An instance of reductio ad absurdam. An attempt to explain why what you are saying seems wrong. That you have no answer to it is the point...
Thanks Ken. You got there before me and used fewer words than I would have.
Okely doke. In that case it's a bad illustration. I said earlier that the arguments placing limitations on women in regard to preaching don't relate to ability or character, but to a difference in the relationship between men and women that was established at creation and argued for by Paul in 1 Timothy 2*.
What is there about being a pilot that is affected by the relationship between men and women? Nothing, as far as I can see. Whereas that is not true of preaching and congregational leadership.
*Whether or not you think Paul is talking nonsense in this chapter is beside the point. the fact remains that he argues his case on the basis of the created difference between men and women
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Yes, and I suspect that part of Paul's clampdown on women is due to concerns that some parts of the early church were too wild, too filled with 'spirit', too inclined to overturn what Paul, and others, saw as the established order. The fact that Paul needs to comment is surely proof that not all early Christians saw things his way.
Edited to say: Cross-posted with Gordon. Need I add that the 'Yes' was addressed to Ken and not to Gordon?
[ 16. June 2005, 14:21: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
I wouldn't dispute what you say; the growth in Pentecostal churches doesn't surprise me
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
This would make a fascinating new thread. I would like to see some proof for the link you make here Ken. In my experience, the really dynamic, growing Pentecostal churches in Sydney are led by dynamic, small-c charismatic male leaders overseeing tightly run and hierarchical structures. I don't know of any where women are prominent in leadership in the teaching sense, although there are some prominent husband-wife teams.
The appeal seems to be totally unrelated to gender issues, but a great deal to do with liveliness, youth, excitement, dynamism, the promise of health and wealth, and ecstatic worship experiences.
I don't like their theology but they have tapped into the secret of growth on a massive scale (although they often have a large back door too).
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Okely doke. In that case it's a bad illustration. I said earlier that the arguments placing limitations on women in regard to preaching don't relate to ability or character, but to a difference in the relationship between men and women that was established at creation and argued for by Paul in 1 Timothy 2*.
What is there about being a pilot that is affected by the relationship between men and women? Nothing, as far as I can see. Whereas that is not true of preaching and congregational leadership.
It's not? As far as I can see, there is nothing about preaching which is affected by the relationship between men and women. Nor leadership for that matter. If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
Carys
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
Carys
I seem to recall discussing this on another thread.
I can't answer for me, but basically, it's to do with where creation order should be modelled. I think the Biblical material suggests that the two places where it should be modelled are in the redeemed community, and in redeemed households.
Saying it should be modelled in society is rather putting the cart before the horse - in the same way as expecting any Christian morality to be seen in society is doing so. IMHO.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Are you arguing for a complete separation between church and state, Lep? IIRC when we had a thread a while back about family values you were agin' the state recognising gay partnerships as marriage. I know that none of us wants to debate gay marriage ever, ever again but it seemed to me that in that instance you wanted the behaviour of secular society to conform, in some sense, to a Christian understanding of what marriage is.
Incidentally, I am a Christian studying for a Ph.D in theology whose supervisor is a) a Christian and b) (insert Little Britain voice) a lady. Should we be concerned?
[ 16. June 2005, 15:05: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
If it's about women teaching/having authority over men, then logically (AFAICT) that has to apply outside the Church as well as inside, which I seem to recall you denying. This is why I find your position inconsistent.
I believe any decision about applications beyond what Paul himself makes (and I say Paul because he's the only one that seems to address the issue of application to church life directly, although Peter clearly believes similar things - see 1 Pe 3:1-6) are matters of Christian liberty, particularly given the number of examples of women in positions of respect and authority that we find in other parts of the New Testament.
As soon as something becomes a matter of Christian liberty, the one who claims liberty leaves themselves open to the charge of inconsistency. Should I eat meat offered to idols? Should I observe the Sabbath? Should I get circumcised? The answer in the NT seems to vary from situation to situation, but Paul and the other NT writers refuse to take the easy way out and formulate a one-size fits-all rule. Sometimes Paul will tuck into a dinner of pork, sometimes he won't. Sometimes he will tell people to get circumcised, other times he will as much as say that the person who gets circumcised has lost touch with the gospel.
In the same way, I want to resist the temptation to consistency and say that there is no rule for whether a woman can be prime minister/ bishop/ monarch / CEO /fighter pilot etc. The answer will depend on an applicaton of grace and Christian wisdom to the situation.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Are you arguing for a complete separation between church and state, Lep?
Well, yes as it happens, I would be very much in favour of that, but I think it's by the by in this discussion.
quote:
IIRC when we had a thread a while back about family values you were agin' the state recognising gay partnerships as marriage. I know that none of us wants to debate gay marriage ever, ever again but it seemed to me that in that instance you wanted the behaviour of secular society to conform, in some sense, to a Christian understanding of what marriage is.
Precisely because because I think "marriage" is a Christian concept. I'm not per se against civil partnerships, although I'm not sure they are very helpful to society, but that, as you say, is another issue.
quote:
Incidentally, I am a Christian studying for a Ph.D in theology whose supervisor is a) a Christian and b) (insert Little Britain voice) a lady. Should we be concerned?
My view is probably not, although I'm not sure. But as, I guess, my opinion will make no difference to your studies, I'm not sure why you are asking.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
You are, of course, quite right that I'm not about to write to the head of the theology department if you take issue with my academic arrangements. I think what I am trying to drive at Lep, is that according to those who do not suffer a woman to teach a man, it is a terrible thing that our reader pops up in the pulpit once a month and delivers a ten minute sermon. On the other hand I can be supervised for a Ph.D by a woman and it isn't, apparently, an issue.
This strikes me as being inconsistent.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
You are, of course, quite right that I'm not about to write to the head of the theology department if you take issue with my academic arrangements. I think what I am trying to drive at Lep, is that according to those who do not suffer a woman to teach a man, it is a terrible thing that our reader pops up in the pulpit once a month and delivers a ten minute sermon. On the other hand I can be supervised for a Ph.D by a woman and it isn't, apparently, an issue.
This strikes me as being inconsistent.
I didn't realise it was a theology Ph.D when you posted earlier, Callan—thought it mighta been Dr Who or something
It's possible this arrangement is unwise; it's possible that it's just fine. Priscilla and Aquila supervised Apollos in his studies of the faith.
My understanding is that the best Ph.D supervisors will be very careful to be guides, sounding boards and questioners, and that those who take a more directive and overly didactic line are either doing a bad job or worse, doing the candidate's work for him/her. So I can't see the problem in principle.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
Maybe it's a problem. Depends how it's done. "Callan, I order you to stop watching Dr Who, go sit in the corner and read your Barth!"
Actually that would be bad coming from a man or a woman. The postgrad supervisors I've had have asked questions and made suggestions. They've made helpful suggestions and asked me to set and work to agreed goals. Hardly teaching authority in the sense meant in 1 Ti 2, I would argue. Preferably in Kerygmania, but here if necessary.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Ken said
quote:
quote:
Plenty of pentecostal and charismatic churches have their ministry open to women. In fact that has often been one reason fro tehm tending to overtake more traditional evangelical churches which tended to be a bit less women-friendly (though usually more so thatn the catholics) And as they tend not to use liturgy its hard to tell how inclusive it is...
And Gordon replied
This would make a fascinating new thread. I would like to see some proof for the link you make here Ken. In my experience, the really dynamic, growing Pentecostal churches in Sydney are led by dynamic, small-c charismatic male leaders overseeing tightly run and hierarchical structures. I don't know of any where women are prominent in leadership in the teaching sense, although there are some prominent husband-wife teams.
Some of the AOG churches have woman pastors. I have met "Pastor Joy" for example. But my experience in such churches has been that the male Pastors simply don't even think about inclusive language. "Father God, I wonder..." hadn't even got "son" changed to child! Except by me, singing 'child' out very loudly!
But other charismatic churches (notably the Baptist church I attended) were almost paranoid about women "being under the headship of men". We weren't even allowed to be in the pulpit! I'd better add that the pulpit was raised impressively at the front, where the altar would have been in another church, high above the stage where the baptismal pool was(covered over). The Pastors and Elders sat up there in posh chairs.
Women there were not allowed to be Home Group leaders in their own right, but only as part of a husband and wife team. Single women were just about tolerated, but women marrid to non-Christian husbands were regarded more or less as sub-standard!
Is it any wonder I am a bit of a Christian feminist!
And what happened to my question about God not separating sacred and secular?
[ 16. June 2005, 22:48: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
Well, it rests on:
a) what Paul means by "teaching" - and think it's fair to say that the reader giving the sermon probably falls into what Paul was instructing Timothy about, the theology lecturer not so much. Especially if it is a "secular" institution. (I don't know whether it is or not in Callan's case)
b) the issue of liberty as outlined by Gordon above.
It's like concentric circles - the church family gathered together (and the Christian family IMHO) is definitely in the middle circle; as you move further out from the middle it gets less clear. We are at liberty to work it out in those areas.
This was a protracted discussion on the Headship thread about this - I don't really think it has that much to do with inclusive language does it?
Nicodemia
quote:
And what happened to my question about God not separating sacred and secular?
What do you mean "what happened to it"? Aren't we discussing it?
[ 16. June 2005, 15:50: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Gordon
Every time I return to this thread you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot! The exercise of authority amongst Christians is to be a matter of footwashing, i.e. servant leadership (Matt 20 v 25-28). And yet here you go equating authority with telling someone how to behave or think - and then having to correct yourself! I spy a plank in your eye, so I do ...... (said he, taking the plank out of his own). Maybe you should start a Kerygmania thread?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
This was a protracted discussion on the Headship thread about this - I don't really think it has that much to do with inclusive language does it?
Lep, we've moved onto this because GC's main argument for exclusive language is that "gender subordination" is part of God's plan for the world, and that we all need to be reminded of this constantly.
I agree, that is some distance from the OP.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
If women are not supposed to have authority over men, especially teaching authority, then surely there is a problem? Especially as Callan is studying theology.
If Gordon could somehow should that it's tacky to have women in teaching authority over men, perhaps more Anglicans would come over to his way of thinking. I am only worried that studying theology will imperil Callan's immortal soul, which is nothing when set next to tackiness, as we all know.
Seriously, the limits of authority women can or should wield over men as Gordon has discussed here seem very inconsistent. To drag things back a bit closer to the topic and away from the dead horse, should women get to be on the committees that write/approve liturgies for use in our churches? This also gets us back to the idea of people being "compelled" to use certain kinds of language.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
To drag things back a bit closer to the topic and away from the dead horse, should women get to be on the committees that write/approve liturgies for use in our churches?
Yes, Ruth, I think they should. They then could at least put a woman's viewpoint. I'm afraid that exclusive minds lead to exclusive language. And many men simply can't see the problem, because they have never had to be in the position of a woman!
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
But if writing liturgy can be in any way thought of as "having authority" then (according to GC) women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near.
In my opinion, liturgical writers probably have more long-term effect upon "average Christians" than any preacher will have. How much of any sermon is remembered from one week to the next? But if liturgy is being used repeatedly (even if not every week), it seeps into the subconscious.
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
Again, it's a matter of Christian liberty (speaking as one who holds GC's position). Depends who. Depends where. Depends why. Depends what. Depends how.
Fiddle the dial on any of those five variables and you can come up with different answers. As 'liberty' really does mean 'liberty', near identical conditions could lead to quite different applications, with both being equally right.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul goes from apparently endorsing one view about eating meat offered to idols to suggesting the other within the same 13 verse chapter. He then comes back to the issue in chapter 10 and offers a different conclusion. How's that for consistency?
Answer: it's perfectly consistent, because Paul believes in wise use and application of gospel freedom. So there is your one-size-fits-all answer that you desperately want for all those situations about women's ministry that the Bible doesn't address. Love Jesus. Love your neighbour. Understand the foolishness of the cross (and in consequence be though an idiot by the rest of the world). Do whatever you jolly well please.
Martin Luther might have said "Sin boldly". As one of my favourite characters on the teev said, "You may say that. I couldn't possibly comment".
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
So, should liturgy be (for those who hold GC's position) a male only preserve? What else can be defined as "having authority"? And who decides???
Again, it's a matter of Christian liberty (speaking as one who holds GC's position). Depends who. Depends where. Depends why. Depends what. Depends how.
Fiddle the dial on any of those five variables and you can come up with different answers. As 'liberty' really does mean 'liberty', near identical conditions could lead to quite different applications, with both being equally right.
Is it me or are you getting completely vague and confused?
What you seem to be saying is that the "traditional evangelical" position and the "liberal" position can be both equally right.
In fact, what I think you're trying to say is that you want to have your cake and eat it too - you want to be able to choose when to apply the "women must not be in authority over men" and when not. Frankly, it doesn't convince me. If the principle applies, then it applies across the board. There are no grounds for cherry-picking when it will apply and when it won't - at least not that I can see anywhere in the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So there is your one-size-fits-all answer that you desperately want for all those situations about women's ministry that the Bible doesn't address. Love Jesus. Love your neighbour. Understand the foolishness of the cross (and in consequence be though an idiot by the rest of the world). Do whatever you jolly well please.
I'm not sure what you're really saying here at all. Certainly I don't see how it applies to the point that I was making. I am not "desperate" for "a one-size-fits-all answer" - I'm merely trying to understand how you can apply what you claim to be Biblical principles in such a selective (and even random) way.
There is (as I see it) a deep inconsistency in your argument.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Aren't there women on the committees deciding new liturgy, then?
It would be interesting to see the proportion of M:F
I must also take a look in the foreword of 'Common Praise' (our new hymn book with several gender-specific word changes) to see what is said about there being women on the committee and sensitivity towards gender inclusiveness....
It was my understanding that many feminist theologians had long moved away from merely protesting about gender-specific references in the bible - in fact, several have become post-Christian in the process. So who is left to keep this issue in the forefront of modern theological thought? (I'm a bit out of touch here these days)
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Is it me or are you getting completely vague and confused?
What you seem to be saying is that the "traditional evangelical" position and the "liberal" position can be both equally right.
Although tempted to reply in as non-purgatorial vein as this response, I won't. The traditional evangelical position is right. The liberal position is wrong. (add necessary qualifiers, IMNSHO, etc.)
But people can come at the same problem from radically different perspectives and sometimes, come up with an identical solution.
An illustration: I might say "Turn off the life support on a Terri Schiavo because it will save the state time and money and compulsory euthanasia is the best invention since sliced bread". You may say "Turn off the life support on a Terri Schiavo because she is a precious human being in God's image who has clearly expressed that she doesn't wish to be sustained in a Persistent Vegetative State".
You see? We have come to the same conclusion about a specific situation, you because you understand the goodness and grace of God and its application to human dignity, me because I am a near psychopathic serial killer who likes to see the state's money used efficiently. [Lest there be any confusion, may I say that I don't support the argument I just gave, I am using it merely to illustrate that two radically opposed perspectives on life my come to the same practical conclusion about a specific situation].
So it is possible that you haven't understood christian freedom, yes. Or it's possible that I have expressed myself in a confusing way. However I am a persistent soul, as you may have gathered, and if God is gracious I will manage to get it right for some of the people some of the time.
In the meantime, if I am having my cake and eating it too, then so is Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 on the issue of meat offered to idols. 1 Corinthians is actually a brilliant and lucid attempt to apply the gospel of grace to all sorts of knotty contemporary problems, and I am trying to apply (possibly unsuccessfully) the same pattern of thinking to the 'women writing liturgy' question.
Which brings me back to the clear and decisive answer I gave earlier: it depends.
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Aren't there women on the committees deciding new liturgy, then?
New liturgy? Is outrage!
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So it is possible that you haven't understood christian freedom, yes.
Yes, I know. I'm not a trad evo do therefore I cannot possibly have understood something like this. Only trad evos have the right answers, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Which brings me back to the clear and decisive answer I gave earlier: it depends.
Which is still a cop-out in my eyes. Paul's position is that he has a clear principle of his freedom, and a clear explanation of why in some circumstances he would choose to curtail his own freedom and defer to the wishes of others. Alas - this is NOT the case with your position over women in authority. Your basic principle is clear enough (you're agin it) but what is not at all clear is why you would apply this in some areas of life and worship and not in others.
Quite apart from anything else, I cannot agree that there is a correlation between Paul exercising his freedom over whether to eat meat sacrificed to idols and you (or anyone else) deciding whether or not a woman should be able to have "authority". In the latter case, it is not about someone "exercising freedom" at all - but about others having their freedom restricted.
I see that there is a new thread in Kerygmania on Jesus and authority and I look forward to seeing how that develops. In the meantime, I think that the issue of what we mean by "authority" is really a different matter to what this thread was about. I'm not sure that it is one that has discussed recently, so I think it would be best to start an appropriate new thread.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
I feel we are in danger of being engulfed in newspeak:
Christian freedom = gender subordination.
The good news of the gospel = oppression of women.
GC it does get jolly confusing for the rest of us when you say you believe in liberty but, when it comes down to specifics, the only freedom you advocate for women is the freedom to make ravioli. What does "Christian freedom" look like for women, from your perspective? (I may not be around to respond for a bit as I'm about to go away for the weekend. However I will catch up once I return as this is a genuine question, and I am curious about the answer.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
What does "Christian freedom" look like for women, from your perspective?
Ah, freedom... Well, Gordon may subscribe to an older idea of freedom:
Freedom for Excellence 1
Freedom for Excellence 2
I certainly do, and it is the traditional (well, ancient to medieval) idea of Christian freedom.
Then we can re-phrase your question as: "What does it mean to be an excellent woman?" Because living this excellence will be the utmost freedom a woman can achieve - rather than "Being able to do everything." Hence we can define freedom positively, as achieving something, rather than merely negatively, as not being forbidden anything.
Using this concept, Gordon may well be able to defend certain prohibitions as not actually restricting female freedom - namely precisely when the activity in question is not part of what "womanhood" is about. Doing these things then is not exercising freedom, but at best a distraction, at worst it is actually limiting freedom. However, if Gordon uses this defense, then he must also be willing to state what goal of "womanhood" he is judging against. Let's hope that it is not just about cooking ravioli in silence...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
This line of argument always reminds me of the celebrated contretemps between Albert Camus and J.P. Sartre about the difference between formal and bourgeois freedom and 'true' freedom.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
So presumable Nicodemia you think adultery should be illegal? Or lying? Or idol worship?
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large - so what is it if concentric circles doesn't float your boat?
Re: freedom. Presumably as Christians we all have a different view of "freedom" from "being able to do anything you want". For those who disagree with IngoB's "classical definitions" what do you think "freedom" is?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This line of argument always reminds me of the celebrated contretemps between Albert Camus and J.P. Sartre about the difference between formal and bourgeois freedom and 'true' freedom.
How about a short summary for people like me, who have never had time for existentialist lamentations?
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Formal/ bourgeois freedom = the freedom to do what you think right (within the usual socially agreed limits).
'True' freedom = the freedom that comes from faithfully serving the revolution.
The analogy stems from, on the one hand, the idea of freedom in its bourgeois/ Occamian sense as being liberated to be the best judge of your own welfare and the 'true' freedom/ freedom for excellence as being free to fulfil yourself according to a norm that someone else, acting in the name of a higher authority (God/ The Revolution/ The Church/ The Party) has set out for you.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
So, just like this ancient concept, really:
“Eternal God, who are the light of the minds that know you, the joy of the hearts that love you, and the strength of the wills that serve you; grant us so to know you, that we may truly love you, and so to love you that we may fully serve you, whom to serve is perfect freedom, in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Prayer of Saint Augustine)
Only it just begs a whole lot of questions, doesn't it?
Wanderer - thanks for the newspeak translation
[ 17. June 2005, 10:14: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Leprechaun said
quote:
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large
What non-believers in society at large do is their own affair. I am wondering how those Christian men and women who believe that women should not be in authority over men are expected to work this out in society at large. Does God have a double standard?
However, this is dangerously near expired equines apparently, so unless you can answer it in a one liner, you had better PM me!
And yes, adultery, lying and idol-worship are all wrong, whoever does it! Doesn't seem to stop people doing it, though! And sometimes the first two are illegal!
Posted by xSx (# 7210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
This, specific, question
quote:
Since when has God said there should be dual standards, and life should be divided into secular and sacred? Why is it necessarily right for a Christian woman to be in charge of, and teach, men, either upfront, or in print, in business say, or an academic setting, but wrong for the same woman to be in Eldership or Leadership and preaching to a mixed congregation?
Don't think the idea of concentric circles answers it!
So presumable Nicodemia you think adultery should be illegal? Or lying? Or idol worship?
You must have some way of deciding what is applicable to Christians, and what is applicable to society at large - so what is it if concentric circles doesn't float your boat?
I think you're confusing two different things - what Christians in society should do and what society as a whole (bearing in mind it's mainly non-Christian) should be forced to do.
Society decides what is right for society at large - through voting, Parliamentary legislation and so on.
It would always be wrong (for instance) for Christians to worship idols or commit adultery. However, this does not mean they should be banned in society at large.
So the question is: should Christians avoid situations where women are in authority over men? Should they refuse to work for a female boss, or does only apply within 'church' settings. We don't say idolatry is only wrong in 'church'.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
So, just like this ancient concept, really:
“Eternal God, who are the light of the minds that know you, the joy of the hearts that love you, and the strength of the wills that serve you; grant us so to know you, that we may truly love you, and so to love you that we may fully serve you, whom to serve is perfect freedom, in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Prayer of Saint Augustine)
Only it just begs a whole lot of questions, doesn't it?
Wanderer - thanks for the newspeak translation
Well, if you compare what Wanderer thinks with what Augustine thinks, I think I'll stay with the big A at this point, thanks very much. It's true, though, Wanderer did a good job of translating some of Augustine's ideas into newspeak.
Freedom seems to be associated in Wanderer's mind (and others) with independence. But if we were created for service, then not to be a servant is in itself a terrible bondage, like being a fish liberated from the drudgery of swimming in water.
We are describing two different religions, however — an Augustinian religion and another one, which is a helpful understanding to have reached.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Well, if you compare what Wanderer thinks with what Augustine thinks, I think I'll stay with the big A at this point, thanks very much. It's true, though, Wanderer did a good job of translating some of Augustine's ideas into newspeak.
How many sticks can you grasp the wrong end of at once, Gordon? Wanderer was, I think, translating what you said into newspeak. I was comparing what Augustine said with what Callan said about 'serving the revolution' in relation to the Camus/Sartre debate.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
I think you're confusing two different things - what Christians in society should do and what society as a whole (bearing in mind it's mainly non-Christian) should be forced to do.
No. I'm not. The issue is AFAIC see - communities and how they make rules for what goes on in their community.
If you see Paul's instructions as being about the Christian community, then it doesn't apply outside that community. There are "rules of membership" for the church that don't apply to society at large.
The further away you get from the context to which he was speaking, the less applicable the rule becomes. I don't think that's hard to understand.
It also, incidentally, highlights what I think all of 1 Timothy is getting at, with the church as the pillar of truth in the communiyt - that the church is the place where creation order is modelled for the rest of society to see, rather than the church bringing creation order to bear on a society that doesn't know Christ.
IMHO of course.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
It was the Blessed Augustine, of course, who compared the body to a wife in one of his sermons advising his congregation to "love it and beat it". In the Confessions he commends St. Monica for her proper subordination to her husband and points out if other wives were to follow her example they'd be less likely to be slapped around by their husbands. So I'm quite happy not to be at one with Augustine on this issue.
But I'd be wary of suggesting that gloomy Gus thought that subordination was a natural or desirable state. Augustine did believe in natural hierarchies - the soul is higher than the body, children are subordinate to parents and (natch) women to men. But he also argues that some forms of hierarchy are unnatural, like that of master and slave and ruler and ruled. Of course, Augustine wasn't anything like a liberal or democrat in the modern sense but it is possible to derive an emancipatory politics from his theology which suggests that subordination derives not from 'nature' but from libido dominandi. In a peculiar sense Augustine is the intellectual ancestor of the great masters of suspicion, who confronted with a 'natural' order unmask the ideological imperatives behind it.
So you can have the shell Gordon, those parts of Augustine's thought that derive from Augustine's Romanitas* and we'll have the kernel, those parts that derive from his critical engagement with same.
(*I allude to the Empire, not the Church just to avoid a highly unnecessary tangent.)
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
OK - I'm back! Did you miss me?
There are a couple of points I want to pick up here. Lep, you said: quote:
If you see Paul's instructions as being about the Christian community, then it doesn't apply outside that community.
This does resolve a lot of problems, but I'm not sure it is consisitent with Paul's aim, or Jesus before him. When they condemned something, be it hypocricsy, self seeking or lieing (just to grab three examples that spring to mind) I don't think they meant: "These are only wrong within the Christian community", I think they meant: "These are wrong wherever they happen". So restricting your interpretation of Paul to the church is convenient, but I'm not sure it is faithful to Paul.
InigoB, thank you for reminding me of your analogy of a different way of looking at excellence, which I found very helpful when you first posted it. However (to use your analogy) it still leaves me asking: "What is the concerto that a woman is allowed to play once she has undergone the discipline of learning scales and practising?". I agree, none of us have a right to preach, lead whatever. The heart of Christian ministry is service and self sacrifice, following in Jesus' own example. But all this talk of women only being allowed to work in certain highly restricted areas makes me think of men jealously guarding their "rights"; I'm afraid it does not resemble Christian generosity or sacrfice (according to my limited perception anyway).
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
InigoB, thank you for reminding me of your analogy of a different way of looking at excellence, which I found very helpful when you first posted it. However (to use your analogy) it still leaves me asking: "What is the concerto that a woman is allowed to play once she has undergone the discipline of learning scales and practising?".
Precisely! "Freedom for Excellence" does not really provide an answer to the question at hand. One has to specify the "goal of womanhood", at least in some vague terms, before one can work with this concept to provide actual answers. All I wanted to point out is that restrictions are not by default evil, which is a basic consequence of Ockhams's Freedom of Indifference. This does not mean that any particular restriction is not evil under Freedom for Excellence.
I think the problem we are facing is to define what "equality" actually means among people who are clearly unequal in all kinds of features (including gender). I think our current answer is actually one of resignation: endless abuse and injustice made us give up on giving everybody a fair go, rather we now try to give everybody the same go. And we are getting so used to this that we have started understanding "fair" as "same" rather than as "appropriate"...
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
Sorry IB, I'm a simple man and you are losing me here. Certainly when you say: quote:
endless abuse and injustice made us give up on giving everybody a fair go
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
[ 20. June 2005, 06:39: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
You didn't misunderstand it, you illustrated it. The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. Hence I can generalize Churchill: "Sameness is the worst form of fairness except for all those others that have been tried." Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted by individuals trying to "play the system" (whatever system it may be) for their own unfair gain. We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
And we are getting so used to this that we have started understanding "fair" as "same" rather than as "appropriate"...
And just who decides what is "appropriate"? Isn't that what all this is about really?
Men have decided that "the women" ought to be allowed to have a go at some things, but they will decide what is appropriate for them to attempt!
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. ... Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted ....
Well, in the UK the slogan for a long time was 'Equality of Opportunity' (is that what you'd call 'appropriateness'?) - that was around when schools became comprehensives. It's tended to die out a bit under attacks from the left (because "it just means the opportunity to become unequal") and the right (just because) and also because it is incredibly difficult to work out and apply. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, though. It's the closest to 'fairness' you can get, IMHO. quote:
We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
In what sense are you using the word "solved" - do the quotation marks change the meaning significantly? Cos, brother, I ain't lookin' at a world in which the social problems are solved - if you are, tell me where it is and maybe I'll move, or at least mosey over for a looksee. And the concept of "sameness" is not really applied - the whole social justice thing is based on respecting diversity, but maybe that's what you meant by 'appropriateness'?
As for stability - I'm not sure that you can use this as a measure of success for social policy since there are so many other factors involved: such as the pace of technological change, for example.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
1/ Ingo's argument basically states that we are freer within certain constraints than outside them. Now this is basically sound. A free society depends on the rule of law, not anarchy. Someone using the scientific methodology is freer to find scientific truth than someone who makes it up as they go along. I am freer by adhering to the highway code than a three year old who exercises his liberty to play in the traffic. A celibate sixteen year old, all other things being equal, is freer than a sixteen year old who has exercised her freedom to get pregnant. So far, so uncontroversial.
2/ Within the Christian tradition this has led to the view that we are freest when our wills are oriented to the will of God. According to Augustine, Adam was freer before the fall than afterwards. Sin is essentially addictive. Rather like someone who exercises their freedom to have a rebellious fag behind the bike shed the sinner becomes enslaved to a dependency which can only be removed fully by supernatural grace. Hence the prayer Qlib cited about Gods service being perfect freedom. Again, I go along with this.
3/ Now this approach is based on an ontological ordering. Human beings are created for fellowship with God and without that fellowship cannot find contentment or freedom or anything else. Again, no argument from me.
Now here is the problem.
4/ Ingo's argument only stands if women are ontologically ordered towards a certain role in life which is subordinate to that or men. Now Gordon denies that female subordination is ontological, insisting that it is merely functional. In this context, however, following this line of reason function cannot be divorced from ontology. Women are ordered to certain roles as a fulfilment of their intrinsic good as created female beings. So Gordon needs to decide either that women are ontologically subordinate to men or to explain to us why he thinks he can get the conclusions based from female inferiority from a professed belief in female equality.
5/ Oliver O'Donovan described Christian ethics as being "epistemologically revealed and ontologically natural". His argument is that whilst we cannot find moral truth through unaided reason we will recognise that truth on some level when we find it because it is what we are created for. So, for example, Augustine could point to the reality of life in the Roman Empire and say: "Look! Is that really what we were created for? Is this really how we find our highest fulfilment?" The shortcomings of invariably putting ourselves first are apparent through their consequences. (This is not to say that Augustine was a consequentialist, I hasten to add). Whether in the stony cruelty of antiquity or the smash and grab society of today we can see that self love has undesirable consequences. C.S. Lewis has a damned soul lament: "I see now that I spent my life doing neither what I liked or what I ought". We recognise the good when we see it. Even if, through our sinful natures we continue to put ourselves first there will be an element of 'divine discontent' in our lives.
On that 'taste and see' level it is not as easy to point to the role of women in modern society and point to their ontological ordering to subordination as it is to point to our ontological ordering to love God and our neighbour. If the removal of a form of subordination is experienced as a liberation then we need to enquire why.
Now Aidan Nichols, who I think would follow Ingo's line of argument all the way here takes the line that, in fact, there is an element of divine discontent in our society about the emancipation of women. He argues boldly that women are created for motherhood and that the abandonment of that vocation makes them deeply unhappy alleging that working women are prone to depression (He cites, however, no research to back this up).
If women are ontologically ordered towards certain roles then there should be none of this guff about: "Its fine for them to supervise Ph.D's just as long as they are subordinate to their husbands and don't deliver 45 minute exegeses on Leviticus in the main Sunday morning service". If female subordination models a creation order within the Church then women should find greater fulfilment - even allowing for their fallen state - doing the flower rota and leading the womens Bible study group than they do working as CEOs in multinational corporations (or whatever) from Monday to Friday.
6/ Finally, apart from those of us who are full time clergy, (and not even them, really) Christian ministry and vocation is not exercised in an exclusively 'church' context. Christian ministry is not merely exercised in whatever time we can spare for our parish church but in our family lives and our jobs as well. It would be daft to say that someone who works eighty hours a week as a doctor and does vast amount of work for a secular charity on the side, is only exercising a Christian ministry when they read the epistle in church once a quarter. So the idea you can bracket off 'church' as modelling how the created order is supposed to be from 'real life' which is merely flawed and subordinate strikes me as being unrealistic. For most Christians the majority of their time is not spent in a 'church' context, nor should it be.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
And just who decides what is "appropriate"? Isn't that what all this is about really?
Well, that's what it tends to be about once a decision has become necessary because doubts have arisen about what is appropriate. That this is now often the case is in my eyes a sign that there are no real communities in the modern Western world anymore. That the consequence is invariably some kind of race for decision power is in my eyes a sign that the intent to (re-)build some form of communal life is also lacking. For me the question would be if this has to be so, and whether it can be called "Christian"? But I believe we are straying too far from the OP now. Perhaps on a new thread...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
<double post because of cross post>
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Well, in the UK the slogan for a long time was 'Equality of Opportunity' (is that what you'd call 'appropriateness'?)
It sounds to me like an attempt to recover a "appropriateness" over and against a largely structureless society. But "appropriateness" is meaningless if you can't work out its practical consequences. So it may have had the right intentions, but it tried to deal with the symptoms rather than with the causes.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
In what sense are you using the word "solved" - do the quotation marks change the meaning significantly?
Well, ideas like democracy, human rights, equal wages, universal education, etc. represent a broad "sameness" solution approach to society's ills, which - once implemented perfectly - will basically cure the world's problems. At least that's what I hear the West saying, and it seems to be the basis of a good many arguments here.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
As for stability - I'm not sure that you can use this as a measure of success for social policy since there are so many other factors involved: such as the pace of technological change, for example.
I would consider the "stability" of a social structure as an inherent measure of its success. Never mind whether one judges that structure to be good, bad, or ugly. It's like "survival of the fittest", which is almost circular.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
Just to clarify - I do not actually share Gordon's point of view on this (much), and I'm rather annoyed that Callan is pointing out the little trap I had laid for him...
I have some sympathy for Fr Nichols argument, as reported here by Callan, but then I think there's a season for everything and the season for a man telling a woman about her "happiness as Divinely set down in biology" is IMHO not now, if ever. I think there's a bit of that type of talk among women already and I'm more than happy to let them work this out among themselves.
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
You didn't misunderstand it, you illustrated it. The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. Hence I can generalize Churchill: "Sameness is the worst form of fairness except for all those others that have been tried." Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted by individuals trying to "play the system" (whatever system it may be) for their own unfair gain. We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
Sorry IngoB, I still don't understand. What is the difference between "fair" and "same" in this context? It would help me if you could give an example of a social problem that had been "solved" by "sameness" but which was not "fair". (Or a situation which is "fair" but not "same".) If I am illustrating your points for you I'm delighted - always happy to be of use - but I'm afraid I am still confused here.
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on
:
Do y'all mean like this: If everyone is the same, to be treated under law and every other way you can think of the same, then that would automatically stamp out, for example, racial and gender quotas in hiring practice?
Whereas "fair" is in the eye of the administrator and/or receiver, and a kinda subjective thing to measure?
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
Just to clarify - I do not actually share Gordon's point of view on this (much), and I'm rather annoyed that Callan is pointing out the little trap I had laid for him...
Ah you philosophical smarty pants always try this sort of thing on. My normal strategy is either to run through the minefield so fast that I am on the other side before the explosions start, or just to shut up and be thought wise*
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Subordination in authority doesn't mean inferiority. And I have never argued that women are subordinate in all things, just in this one area.
As for who supervises PhDs and who cooks ravioli, there is no particular reason that I can think of to link either these specific examples—or a host of others—to one or the other sex. I just don't think the Bible defines roles that tightly.That is just one of the complications associated with extrapolating from the way the church, the household of God operates wrt preaching authority, to the way the rest of society conducts its business.
Now we may feel tempted to make extrapolations from one to the other, but we should acknowledge that this is what we are doing and accord such extrapolations with the weight due to them, ie, less.
*Prov. 17:28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Though some might be better advised to follow Abe Lincoln's advice: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Either you've introduced an incredibly subtle and hairsplitting distinction between 'being' and 'nature' into the discussion or you've inadvertently set off one of Ingo's anti-personnel mines.
Your argument seems to want to avoid saying that an inferiority is 'ontological' as that would lead you into somewhere you don't want to go (Arianism, women as intrinsically inferior to men) whilst at the same time having many of the conditions that ontology would otherwise create (church mirroring the created order, the Son being subordinate in His very nature).
Perhaps you should try 'semi-ontologically subordinate'.
Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Either you've introduced an incredibly subtle and hairsplitting distinction between 'being' and 'nature' into the discussion or you've inadvertently set off one of Ingo's anti-personnel mines.
No, no distinction, so let's see if I've bombed...
quote:
whilst at the same time having many of the conditions that ontology would otherwise create
OK, so are you saying that ontology necessarily excludes functional subordination? Which obviously, I dispute—whether we are speaking of the Godhead or of male and female in their shared humanity.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Gordon:
quote:
OK, so are you saying that ontology necessarily excludes functional subordination? Which obviously, I dispute—whether we are speaking of the Godhead or of male and female in their shared humanity.
No I'm not. What I'm saying is that when you are saying something or someone is subordinate by nature that is an inherently ontological claim.
An example. I'm a Purgatory host. In some circumstances I can tell you to drop a subject or to take an argument to hell. That is a functional superiority of sorts but its not ontological. It does not inhere within me. I could cease to be a host or you could become an admin (dread thought!) and when we are arguing like this my hostly status is irrelevant, both of us are only as good as our arguments. In certain circumstances I have authority over you but that authority is detachable from me. It can be laid down as easily as it was taken up. Hence functional, not ontological.
A more drastic example would be Augustine's discussion of slavery in City of God. Augustine remarks that Ham was not a slave through nature but through sin. His point was that slavery was a result of the fall, not a way that human beings are supposed to live. One may contrast this with Aristotle who believed that some people were slaves by nature. Augustine's position is that there are slaves but that they are not ontologically different to their masters, whereas Aristotle argues for a category of persons who are ontologically servile.
Now it seems to me that you are arguing that the subordination of women to men is not akin to the subordination of shipmate to host or even the subordination of slave to master, in an Augustinian sense, but part of the created order. To be a woman is also to be subordinate. To be. Being. Hence an ontological and not a functional subordination.
Apropos of the Trinity, if the subordination of the second person is merely a way of saying that the Father begets and the Son is begotten then functional and therefore, as far as I can see, this is orthodox. If you are saying that the Son is intrinsically inferior because of His nature then you deny the equality of the Trinity and the Holy Catholic Church cries out against your errors. (With apologies to Greyface - I've wanted to do that for a while.)
Does that make sense?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Sorry IngoB, I still don't understand. What is the difference between "fair" and "same" in this context? It would help me if you could give an example of a social problem that had been "solved" by "sameness" but which was not "fair". (Or a situation which is "fair" but not "same".) If I am illustrating your points for you I'm delighted - always happy to be of use - but I'm afraid I am still confused here.
OK, let's take democracy, the paradigm of "fairness is sameness". Mr. X is a chav (in American "trailer trash", I guess?) who has never bothered reading anything but the sport section of the newspaper (not that he reads much, it takes too long) and his TV diet consists of Jerry Springer and female mud wrestling. He has blissfully forgotten all of his school education and lives from cheating social security and the occasional minor crime. He has only left his town to go drinking in the next bigger one. Ms. Y is a journalist, foreign affairs expert, and has travelled the world extensively. She has teritary degrees in English and economics. She reads widely and if she watches TV, it generally is the news or some documentary. Now, in the upcoming democratic election Mr. X and Ms. Y have precisely the same voting power: one vote. They are the same as far as democracy is concerned. But is that fair? Is it appropriate to say that what Mr. X thinks about national policy has the same weight as what Ms. Y thinks? Clearly this is not so (of course, you may feel this irresistible urge to say that it is - but that's just your social conditioning overriding reason ). Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage. So, if we introduced an intelligence and education bias, a Mr. Z might try to restrict access to education to his family and their offspring, thereby skewing the system. So "sameness is fairness" is a resigned position, when you've given up "fairness is appropriateness" because people abuse more appropriate systems. Is that clearer now?
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Wow, IngoB, so you would actually restrict people's voting rights based on your assessment of their contribution to society? The next problem you face is how to deal with the people you've disempowered, so that they stay content (or at least passive) in their subjection. Here are your options: draconian punishments, vicious policing, rigged trials and, ultimately, extermination.
And you have the cheek to tell others that their social conditioning is over-riding reason? Maybe, unlike you, we've looked over the edge of the abyss that you'd cheerfully drive us all over, and decided to take another route.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
IngoB said
quote:
OK, let's take democracy, the paradigm of "fairness is sameness". Mr. X is a chav (in American "trailer trash", I guess?) who has never bothered reading anything but the sport section of the newspaper (not that he reads much, it takes too long) and his TV diet consists of Jerry Springer and female mud wrestling. He has blissfully forgotten all of his school education and lives from cheating social security and the occasional minor crime. He has only left his town to go drinking in the next bigger one. Ms. Y is a journalist, foreign affairs expert, and has travelled the world extensively. She has teritary degrees in English and economics. She reads widely and if she watches TV, it generally is the news or some documentary. Now, in the upcoming democratic election Mr. X and Ms. Y have precisely the same voting power: one vote. They are the same as far as democracy is concerned. But is that fair? Is it appropriate to say that what Mr. X thinks about national policy has the same weight as what Ms. Y thinks? Clearly this is not so (of course, you may feel this irresistible urge to say that it is - but that's just your social conditioning overriding reason ). Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage. So, if we introduced an intelligence and education bias, a Mr. Z might try to restrict access to education to his family and their offspring, thereby skewing the system. So "sameness is fairness" is a resigned position, when you've given up "fairness is appropriateness" because people abuse more appropriate systems. Is that clearer now?
No, could you try again, please?
And I'm neither a chav, nor trailer trash, and I have got a tertiary degree, but you have confused me even more!
Posted by Demas (# 7147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage.
This is a very functional view of democracy - that it is merely the least worst mechanism for stable governance.
There are other models; two that come to mind are the views that democracy is based upon the need for the consent of the governed (a social contract) and that as such all should particpate; and the second that one person one vote comes not from a belief in the equal ability of all to decide but some sort of equality of worth (we are all created equal/we are all children of God).
In these views democracy (one voter one vote) has a moral imperative associated with it; an inefficient democracy is preferable to an efficient dictatorship with a functioning train system.
So 'sameness' (actually 'equality' might be a better word) is not a default position entered into due to lack of appropriate systems to judge real worth, but an actual desired outcome.
(I hope this isn't too much of a tangent)
[ 21. June 2005, 08:47: Message edited by: Demas ]
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
Spot on, Demas, AFAIAC. The idea that equality = sameness is usually produced by those who just want an Aunt Sally to knock down.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Wow, IngoB, so you would actually restrict people's voting rights based on your assessment of their contribution to society?
Sure, if I knew a way of doing this which cannot (or at least, cannot easily) be abused. Unfortunately, I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
The next problem you face is how to deal with the people you've disempowered, so that they stay content (or at least passive) in their subjection. Here are your options: draconian punishments, vicious policing, rigged trials and, ultimately, extermination.
Oh, please. That's so ... unsophisticated. Clearly, jobs and TV (the modern version of pane et circensis) are more than sufficient to keep the electorate passive. Imagine where these numbers would be if there wasn't such an incredible effort to get people to vote (not that they are impressive as it is).
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
And you have the cheek to tell others that their social conditioning is over-riding reason? Maybe, unlike you, we've looked over the edge of the abyss that you'd cheerfully drive us all over, and decided to take another route.
Oh sure, it's quite rational to give up and go for the "sameness solution" democracy, for the time being I completely agree with Churchill's saying. That doesn't change the fact that democracy is essentially an unfair (in the sense of inappropriate) system. And I'm quite worried that some coming crisis may be too much for democracy to handle, precisely because it's too inappropriate. Unfortunately, then invariably a dictator steps in. And that's the worst...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position. The obvious example is Noam Chomsky, one of the finest minds of his generation, supporting Pol Pot.
Joe Sixpack, to do him justice, can often be induced to vote against his interests but he never makes those sorts of catastrophic mistakes.
So Joe Sixpack's right to cashier his governors needs to be affirmed, lest he find himself governed by an elite of Chomsky's. He may be right and they may be wrong. The fact that their wrongness comes from a greater intellectual sophistication and even moral sensibility does not alter the fact that they can be terribly, terribly wrong.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position....The fact that their wrongness comes from a greater intellectual sophistication and even moral sensibility does not alter the fact that they can be terribly, terribly wrong.
Indeed, classically it is the clever person's apprehension of his (or her) own cleverness and sophistication that leads them astray: "I am very clever, and specialise in detached, abstract, analytical thinking, therefore my conclusions are bound to be correct, especially when compared to an idiot like Joe Sixpack."
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
This is a very functional view of democracy - that it is merely the least worst mechanism for stable governance.
Correct. Except that I'm not 100% convinced of the "least" (although the historical "trial and error" certainly indicates that it's the least worst so far).
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
There are other models; two that come to mind are the views that democracy is based upon the need for the consent of the governed (a social contract) and that as such all should particpate;
Except that there's no a priori reason which requires such a social contract to instate "sameness of all". Most of the contracts in my life are not based on sameness, but on mutual profit of some kind. Indeed, I have even entered by my free will into several contracts which handed over my life to other people, based on my assessment that this is to my advantage. (I have had several operations in hospital.)
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
and the second that one person one vote comes not from a belief in the equal ability of all to decide but some sort of equality of worth (we are all created equal/we are all children of God).
I think a reading the gospel as a straightforward political message is flawed. Render unto Caesar...
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
In these views democracy (one voter one vote) has a moral imperative associated with it; an inefficient democracy is preferable to an efficient dictatorship with a functioning train system.
Which is fine as long as the inefficent democracy is efficient enough to guarantee the well-being of its citizens. I see no guarantee that this always has to be the case. And how come the only alternative is an efficient dictatorship?
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position. The obvious example is Noam Chomsky, one of the finest minds of his generation, supporting Pol Pot.
What precisely does this establish other than that the dictatorship of one person, no matter how "smart", is not a good idea? Clearly I agree with that. If the group of "Joe Sixpacks" on average makes better decisions than the group of "eggheads", then clearly it would be appropriate to assign most political power to the "Joe Sixpacks". (If we knew how to determine this and if we knew how to protect this system from abuse.) I happen to doubt that this is the case, but that's not really what I'm arguing about.
Posted by Qlib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most of the contracts in my life are not based on sameness, but on mutual profit of some kind. Indeed, I have even entered by my free will into several contracts which handed over my life to other people, based on my assessment that this is to my advantage. (I have had several operations in hospital.)
But this is nonsense. You don’t give the surgeon your life, you merely give him permission to operate on your body, in the hope that this will prove to be to your advantage. What you give him in exchange is your money and you do this either directly or indirectly (through the tax system and/or health insurance)
quote:
Which is fine as long as the inefficent democracy is efficient enough to guarantee the well-being of its citizens. I see no guarantee that this always has to be the case. And how come the only alternative is an efficient dictatorship?.... Clearly I agree with that. If the group of "Joe Sixpacks" on average makes better decisions than the group of "eggheads", then clearly it would be appropriate to assign most political power to the "Joe Sixpacks". (If we knew how to determine this and if we knew how to protect this system from abuse.)
You’re thinking like a scientist and you need to think like a social scientist instead. There are no guarantees of anything in this life. It is accepted that there is a balance to be struck between democracy and efficiency, but that does not, of course, mean that dictatorship (or oligarchies) are necessarily efficient either. And you will never know, on average, which group is going to make the ‘best’ decisions, so you will never have a basis for handing power over to a group. Finally, democracy is the choice because it is the best-known way of protecting systems from abuse.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
I admit that I've missed a page or two of distilled wisdom, so sorry if you've been around this 5 times already, but the "democracy or not" discussion seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, because, unlike the societies within which Aristotle and Augustine wrote, no church is in any position to impose anything (with a few exceptions, eg some orthodox churches, but even that is changing fast). Christians vote with their feet, and that, ultimately, is what decides what models of leadership and what use of language is acceptable.
So, on one level, the clear answer to the OP is "No". There is no need for inclusive language. Now if the rejection of inclusive language means that the church ends up close enough to empty to no longer be economically viable, you could argue that inclusive language is worth giving serious consideration. And if the use of inclusive language empties churches, you could argue in the opposite direction. Most of us would agree that there is little point in a church adopting a position that guarantees its extinction, however pure and noble it looks on paper.
What happens in practice is that a possibly implicit negotiation process decides what range of language, leadership models or whatever are acceptable. That process is more than a "add up the ticks" system, it's more like a game theory model, and so there will probably be more than one equilibrium point (we could call them denominations).
But imposing inclusive language is not remotely democratic, and, from the above, I would argue that it just can't work. You can maybe force people to try it, but you can't force anyone to use it. If you insist, people vote with their feet, as has clearly happened to some extent in, say, the Anglican church (changes to liturgy are certainly one reason cited for leaving).
And imposing leaders is even more hopeless. Everyone worked out a long time ago that the congregation hold the leaders hostage by their giving or non-giving - the John Jeffreys saga was a worked example of how grassroots financial clout trumps top-down appointments, for better or worse.
That's why the example on another thread about how female army officers are accepted is completely irrelevant to the church. A soldier doesn't expect to be served by his colonel, liking her is not part of the deal, he doesn't pay her, and doesn't expect to be understood by her. Imagine the military authority model applied to the church, in the aim of making female leadership acceptable, and the image should be sufficiently absurd not to need detailed analysis.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
A soldier doesn't expect to be served by his colonel
Actually, in real life, soldiers do expect some services from the colonel. In peacetime the soldiers expect the officers to make sure they are paid, fed, and housed, to treat them more or less fairly, to enforce discipline and military law, to give orders, to arbitrate in disputes between soldiers in the unit, and to take their side in disputes with people outside their unit. All those things are "services" in a sense. In battle the soldier understands that they may be ordered into harm's way but has a rational expectation that they will not be endangered unneccessarily or maliciously, or in order to win the colonel a VC. Plenty of colonels who broke those unwritten rules have ended up with a bullet in the back from an NCO. Some of them have even won posthumous VCs.
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
Even we we take all that at face value, do you really think it sounds remotely like the kind of church most people would want to join? Hands up who wants to be part of a church where the unelected priest decides what risks are taken by individual members of the congregation?! At best, it sounds like a cult to me.
And the NCO-operated bullet in the neck is an example of an informal control mechanism, of the kind that are important in any organisation, and pretty much all there is in some churches. If even army colonels are not above mutinies, it should be abundantly clear that contemporary Christian leadership can't get very far from what the grassroots want unless the leaders have an independent source of income.
Posted by HoosierNan (# 91) on
:
INclusive language, IMO, is necessary, because of how language shapes our understanding of the world. If you have read _1984_, you would be aware of how language was one of the most potent means for controlling the population.
Have you noticed that in the American press, "desecration" of the Koran has turned into "mishandling"? Look back over the past few weeks, and you will see this. The stories start out with the strong, emotional word that implies a willful act intended to be hurtful, then moves into the use of another word that is suggestive of unintentional and ignorant, even innocent activity.
Not talking about something also renders it invisible. And that is what exclusive language does--it makes the women invisible.
A story: I once belonged to a club that owned some property where club activities took place. We had a work day in which various repairs and landscaping took place. A male member of the group took photographs and gave them to me, as the archivist, to put in a scrapbook. The men were doing a lot of the heavy work, like digging and hauling gravel and rocks. The women were painting, planting, taking water to the men at regular intervals, and preparing and cleaning up after a feast. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE WOMAN IN ANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. So I put a written note about what the women did in the scrapbook. However, since most people will just look at a scrapbook, but will not read it, what is the impression?
In the same way, inclusive language says the women were there then and are here now. Therefore, yes, I do think it is necessary.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
Thank you, HoosierNan, for bringing the thread back to sanity, and what it was originally asking.
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
Why should women feel invisible by the continuance of customs and traditions, and still have to fight for visibility in the 21st century?
Posted by Melon (# 4038) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
Who said that?
quote:
Why should women feel invisible by the continuance of customs and traditions, and still have to fight for visibility in the 21st century?
If indeed inclusive language makes women more visible, which seems highly debatable to me - it surely makes gender less visible. And if what you are calling exclusive language makes them invisible, which seems even more debatable. It's the rhetoric used to justify the use of inclusive language that makes terms traditionally referring to men and women refer uniquely to men.
HoosierThanThou says
quote:
Not talking about something also renders it invisible.
and that, from where I'm sitting, is precisely the problem with imposing inclusive language - it makes having a discussion within the church about gender difficult, if not impossible, unless the "discussion" is actually a r