hedrick@topaz.UUCP (01/03/87)
[I'm moving this from talk.religion.misc to mod.religion.christian because discussions about the details of Trinitarian doctrine seem a bit abstruse for a general group. --clh] I agree with Chris Redmond completely about degendering language used in Christian worship. The real problem is people who do a global replace of "men" --> "persons". If these things are carefully done by people with reasonable judgement, there is no problem. However I am still not convinced that we have a good solution for the Trinity. Like Chris, I have noticed "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" being used a lot for this. However I don't think that is a solution. Maybe it's just me, but it makes me cringe. First, somehow that set of words makes me think more of Brahma, Vichnu, and Shiva than of the Christian Trinity. But more seriously, I think this language will tend to lead to an incorrect view of the Trinity. Father, Son and Spirit point to the inherent nature of the Persons, and their relationship to each other. Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer point to various actions with respect to the universe and its creatures. The problem is that it isn't really orthodox to characterize the Persons of the Trinity by what they do. Of course we tend to think of the Father as creating, the Son as redeeming, and the Spirit as sustaining. But properly speaking, all three of these actions are actions of the entire Trinity, and are carried out by all of the Persons. The three Persons are distinguished, not by specialized roles with respect to the creation, but by their relationship to each other. I have no problem with using creator, redeemer and sustainer to characterize God, and even now and then to characterize the Trinity. But if that language replaced the traditional language, I think it would tend to lead to a modalist view of the Trinity.
actor@percival.UUCP (Clif Swinford) (01/13/87)
How about "Parent, Child, and Holy Spirit"? Keeps the relationship, without
the gender...
Clif Swinford
..!tektronix!reed!{percival,skeeve}!actor (UUCP)mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/13/87)
Calling the Trinity "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" also has the drawback that it depersonalizes the Persons. "Father" is very much more descriptive of the kind of relationship men can have with that Person than "Creator" is. C. Wingate
pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer) (01/20/87)
Before an decision on de-gendering the Bible, consider:
(1) God chose to send Christ into the world, to redeem all of us. This was
a conscious decision, planned before the beginning of time.
(2) Christ came into the world as a male, not a female. The gender was God's
choice, a conscious decision.
(3) Gender was a powerful tool in many of Christ's teachings. Consider the
Parables of the Kingdom, for instance the seven wise brides, and the seven
foolish brides. That the bride-groom is Christ, and the Church is
represented by the brides, is a powerful symbology. To gain a deeper
understanding of this symbology, a study of Jewish marriage rites and
customs is very illuminating.
(4) Paul often compared the Church to a bride, and Christ, the head of the
Church, to a bride-groom. In defining the spiritual authority between
the Church and Christ as like the spiritual authority between a wife and
husband, again, is powerful symbology.
De-gender efforts must observe the same strictures as any translation effort.
A passage of scripture is likely to contain numerous levels of meaning, some of
which may not necessarily be revealed to the interpreter, such as passages in
Revelation. It would be an impossible task, were it not for the Holy Spirit,
because all aspects of a passage must be conveyed into the new language.jlpflederer@watmum.UUCP (Janet L. Pflederer) (01/20/87)
In <8339@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > > Calling the Trinity "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" also has the > drawback that it depersonalizes the Persons. "Father" is very much more > descriptive of the kind of relationship men can have with that Person than > "Creator" is. This is a good example of the damage that the English "man = male or person" can do. My initial reaction to this was one of exclusion. (What kind of relationship can I (being a woman) have with that Person?) Did Charley intend this? I suspect not. In my limited experience, the assumption that a person (and hence a Christian) is a male is far more damaging to Christian women than the use of male images for God. This is a problem with *English*. Substituting "person" for "man" in my head won't work. In Lk 7:20 the men (John's disciples) coming to ask Jesus a question are males (Gk - aner, andros). The new man and the old man (Rm 6:6 and Eph 4:24, among others) are not. (The Gk anthropos is used.) Rather than intentionally mistranslating the male imagery that is in the bible (something I don't want to do), I wish that there were a way to accurately translate "anthropos" into English without offending anyone's aesthetic sensibilities (including mine). On the other hand, I'd also like to avoid using language that occasionally, unnecessarily, and (we hope) temporarily may give a woman the impression that she is isolated from the love of God and/or the fellowship of the body. That's a very heavy price to pay for aesthetics. Janet L. Pflederer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- csnet: jlpflederer@waterloo.csnet arpa: jlpflederer%watmum%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa uucp: jlpflederer@watmum.uucp uucp path: { allegra|ihnp4|seismo|tektronix|ubc-vision }!watmath!watmum!jlpflederer [Actually, the view that Charley has expressed on this subject seems to be essentially the same as yours -- what he, I, and I think you object to is mostly blind substitution of "person" for "man" and "creator" for "father", without considering the effect in context. One can usually come up with a way to translate passages involving anthopos, as long as you don't demand that we find a single word that will always work to translate it. One Catholic novelist, whose name unfortunately escapes me, has started alternating male and female imagery about God, and referring to Her in both genders. The effect is arresting at times, but far more satisfactory than attempting to make Her neuter or impersonal. I'd rather have a prayer begin "O God, who watches over us with fatherly and motherly care", or even "O God, our Father and our Mother", than see all references to God as father vanish or turn into "parent". "Our parent, who art in Heaven..." Yuck. --clh]
christian@topaz.UUCP (01/21/87)
My position on this matter is a bit more conservative than our gracious moderator suggests. First, with respect to the God-language, I still must insist on the traditional male language for the Father and the Son. For those of you who find this brings up confusing images of god-without-femininity, I would point out that the God-language doesn't mean that God is male-like any more than he is female-like-- it is that somehow the male images are more appropriate. It is silly and sexist to imply that men can't nurture, or that women don't fight, or whatever. The scripture texts as they come down to us use male language for the father and the son, and since female god models were all about them, one assumes that there was a reason why they knew God as "male" rather than "female". As far as the person-language is concerned, I'm willing to be more flexible. I happen not to have all these problems with connotations; I read "man" as "male" or not depending upon the context. With care, I don't mind that we try to reflect the texts more accurately; in this regard, the ongoing RSV project is laudable. The problem is that what I see of it isn't being done carefully, and that the motivations are more political than spiritual. For example, we have the new Episcopal hymnal. Ignoring its musical sins for the moment, one will find that virtually every hymn has been altered, usually badly, in a flight from anything even suggesting male language. (Although they hadn't quite the nerve to to muck with "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen") In the process they raised no-one's consciousness, created a wealth of bad poetry, and raised a lot of ire. You see, the act of changing the language is freighted with as much negative meaning as the language itself was before. Whether you intend it or not, it stands for the destruction of all tradition on the altar of political expedience-- especially inasmuch as it is done badly. So I don't think that the language game is one that the church can win; only a faction can as the game is now played. C. Wingate
christian@topaz.UUCP (01/30/87)
In article <8493@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, jlpflederer@watmum.UUCP (Janet L. Pflederer) writes: > Rather than intentionally mistranslating the male imagery that is in > the bible (something I don't want to do), I wish that there were a way > to accurately translate "anthropos" into English without offending > anyone's aesthetic sensibilities (including mine). One solution might be to just not translate the term. Thus one could avoid limitations imposed by the English language. There is ample precident. Some translations leave the term "baptize" untranslated, thereby avoiding (or perhaps supprting a particular position in) the immerse/sprinkle controversy. The words "Christ" and "Messiah" are almost never translated. "Christ" is usually used as a synonym for "God" while the word "messiah" refers to a savior of some sort, who, depending on the context, may or may not be divine. The original Hebrew should be translated as "annointed". "Annointed" gives connotations of oil on someone's forehead, which is inappropriate for most Christian uses. Another word that might be better left untranslated is "Logos", usually rendered as "Word". This translation drops many meanings which the term had in ancient Greek philosophical thought. (Of course one might want to drop these meanings.) --- Barry Buchbinder (608)221-5000 Agrigenetics ; 5649 E. Buckeye Rd. ; Madison WI 53716 USA {{harvard|topaz|seismo}!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
christian@topaz.UUCP (01/30/87)
Consider: God uses gender in the Scriptures to denote character or quality, not necessarily male or female. Of course, accordingly to the letter of the Word of God, when God refers to a man he means a man, and when He refers to a woman He means a woman; but we have to remember that God is Spirit and that since the Spirit of God is the author of all Scripture, the Scripture must be interpreted and read spiritually. This is why gender is important in the Old Testament. God is not so much concerned about male or female or gender, He is more concerned about what the gender symbolizes or signifies. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew. And if you know anything about Hebrew you know that it knows nothing of the neuter sense. Hebrew is a little like French in the way nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine. When the Scriptures talk about God in the feminine sense, say as a mother, the Holy Spirit is trying to emphasize the mother-like characteristics of God. In contrast, when the Scriptures talk about God in a masculine sense, say as father, the Holy Spirit is emphasizing the father-like characteristics of God. Can't it be understood that an earthly father, especially in this day of house husbands, can also do motherly type chores and responsibilities. A father can change a diaper or make a meal or do anything that women in the past have historically done. So it is not unreasonable to understand how God can be at times symbolized as a father or a mother, or as a man or a woman; and that Scripture is not saying that God is absolutely a man or a woman. This is why I bring up the Hebrew, because the Hebrew designates people, places and things as masculine or feminine for the express purpose of showing the symbol or disposition or trait of that particular person, place or thing. I am open to further discussion on this subject. Ken Hall