rgo@berlioz.nsc.com (Ronald Olshausen) (06/10/89)
The Lutheran church which I attend has rather recently adopted what's referred to as 'inclusive language' text for the traditional Lutheran service. This entails replacing many gender-specific references, such as 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', with 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier'. Though this practice really bothers me, many others in the congregation don't seem to mind. Not only do I feel that some of the foundations of Christianity are being somewhat compromised, but I feel it does a disservice to the long tradition of the Church. I've heard this is being done in the Episcopal and Methodist churches, as well. I believe that this is an attempt to water down the content of the message. It is to me an attempt to reach a bigger demographic group: a response to a rapidly dwindling church-going populace. Did anyone else read the Time article about the dramatic drop in attendance in the so-called "mainstream" churches? According to the article, attendance at the three largest denominations in America has dropped 55% in the last 20 years. I'd be interested in hearing from others who may have had some experience with this, or who may have opinions on the matter. To me, trying to please everyone sometimes produces exactly the opposite effect. Ron Olshausen NSC-Santa Clara
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (06/10/89)
I don't agree with all of your criticisms. Using inclusive language is not "an attempt to water down the content". Nobody says "our Christianity is too strong, let's water it down." Whether watering down actually results as side effect is however an important question. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with trying to reach a bigger demographic group. Christ calls us clearly to reach the whole world, and it's also clear that Christianity is not supposed to have any barriers due to sex. So again, there can be no question of bad intent. The question is about the result. First, let me say that there's one important issue on which I don't have an answer. That is whether traditional language actually creates barriers for women, outside a few extremists. That's not a question I am equipped to answer. Perhaps others will be able to. Certainly if a significant number of women feel that Christianity does not apply to them because of male-oriented language, this is a problem that we have to deal with somehow. I'd be willing to pay some price in esthetics if we make a more effective witness. Wouldn't you? Paul was willing to be a Jew to the Jews and one outside the Law to those outside the Law (I Cor 9:20-21). I think we can yield our favorite language if it's really a stumbling block for others. What I'd like to do is to draw the line between historical documents and new things. If it's important to do so, I guess I'd give in. But I'd like us to keep the ability to appreciate the faith of those in other cultures, and not to demand that everything we read has been predigested to remove all material that might show a different background. I believe in singing anthems with their original words, even if they have theology that differs slightly from ours, as long as it is a legitimate historical expression of the Christian faith. Similarly, we should be able to say historic creeds, sing traditional hymns, etc. But most of what we say during a given service comes from contemporary sources: the current liturgy, or prayers written by our pastors for the occasion. I see no reason why these things shouldn't be done inclusively. The point is that when you're doing something new, you choose wordings that simply don't mention "man". But when you take an old text and try to adapt it, you end up doing things like global replace of "man" with "person", and end up with what I consider objectionable wording. If it does turn out to be necessary to reword existing texts, I'd rather see major surgery, rather than simple global replacements. We recently sang "All people that on earth do dwell" in a non-sexist version. The second verse was "The Lord, you know, is God indeed. Without our aid God did us make; We are the sheep which God doth feed, And for a flock God doth us take." This simply cries out LOOK AT ME. I'M NOT SAYING HIM OR HIS. I can't believe that this is any improvement. I'd rather have a complete rewrite than this sort of mindless editing. However the big issue is God as Father. I wish I had a solution to this. I don't know any neutral replacement. The recent tendency seems to be to use creator instead of father. I'll comment below on a specific problem I have with "creator, redeemer, and sustainer". But aside from that, we're replacing something very personal with something less so. I think that's a step backwards. The move from thinking of God as an abstract creator to our father was a crucial one. We certainly can't abandon it. One interesting possibility is to try to mix male and female images. Mindlessly alternating Him and Her, or Father and Mother is likely to produce hideous results. But I'm beginning to see some very creative work with using female imagery responsibly. Andrew Greeley in his more recent novels refers to God as both as Him and Her. He manages to make this work. He typically uses the female form when he is trying to emphasize certain aspects of God where it seems natural. A particularly creative contribution to this issue comes from Rebecca Pentz' contribution to the volume "Encountering Jesus: A Debate on Christology", ed. Stephen Davis. The book is otherwise fairly boring, but she has a chapter "Can Jesus Save Women?" This chapter deals with a number of issues involving how Christianity appears to women. Many of them are important, and I find her discussions innovative and sound. The suggestion that is relevant in this discussion is that we should think of God's actions using female images. In a section on the atonement she quotes Julian of Norwich (14th Cent), who is famous for referring to "Mother Jesus". Pentz seeings Jesus' death as an act of childbirth, suffering to bring us to new birth. She describes other aspects of both the Father's and Jesus' way of dealing with us as mothering. I'm afraid it's going to be a long time before I am going to be able to listen to "Mother, Son, and Holy Spirit" without a shudder. Pentz does not suggest this, nor do I. However if we can start using images from women's experience as well as men's, we can start moving to the point where such a thing sounds more natural. I do not suggest doing this simply as a concession to feminism. Rather, I think Pentz' suggestions bring new insight into the way God works, and would be valuable even if the current ferment did not exist. The last issue I'd like to mention is a specific problem with "creator, redeemer, and sustainer." I have no problem with these titles for God. They certainly all apply. However if they come to be used in a Trinitarian context, I am afraid that they imply a heresy called modalism. Classical Trinitarian doctrine says that the relationship among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an intrinsic aspect of God. Even before there was a world, God had the relationship of love within him. Unfortunately, creator, redeemer and sustainer name, not roles in this eternal relationship, but ways that God interacts with the world. They imply that the Trinity does not tell us about God's actual nature, but just about how he deals with us. This is not what the Trinity is intended to be about. It is true that creation is often seen as in some sense particularly the responsibility of the Father, redemption of the Son, and sustaining of the Spirit. However remember that there is only one God. Creation, redemption, and sustaining are all actions carried out jointly by all three Persons of the Trinity. They cannot really be used to characterize the Persons. Again, I have no problem with the terms themselves, just with using them as a replacement for Father, Son and Holy Spirit as ways to characterize the Trinity. If it is thought that Father can no longer be used (or at least not alone), I think we're going to have to come up with a different replacement. I wish I had a good answer. But I am not prepared to accept something that replaces the traditional language with something that fails to do justice to the concepts. We may either have to learn to live with Mother, or use the traditional three words, but supplement them with images of God mothering us.
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (06/14/89)
In article <Jun.10.01.38.40.1989.4171@athos.rutgers.edu> rgo@logic.nsc.com (Ronald Olshausen) writes: >The Lutheran church which I attend has rather recently adopted >what's referred to as 'inclusive language' text for the >traditional Lutheran service. This entails replacing >many gender-specific references, such as 'Father, Son >and Holy Spirit', with 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier'. First, to deal *quickly* with the Bible's (Pauls' ?) so-called mysoginism: I do not believe that men or women are superior to one another. However, as a result of "the Fall", God put the male of the human race in the role as leader and dominant figure. Equal with different roles. HOW ?: This is a possible explanation why God put himself as "He" ..etc.. as opposed to "She...." . If God were going to put the males of this world "in charge", as an example , He would call himself a male. WHY ?: The example of Father,Son and Holy Spirit are excellent 'human language' descriptions of the roles of the 3 persons of God. They give many more implications of the roles that Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Where is the love of the word Father (Abba, Daddy) in the word Creator? How does the word Redemmer, also show the relationship between the Father and the Son? How does the word Sanctifier show the ability of a Holy SPIRIT capableof seeing, comforting and guiding all? WHERE ?: (one example) Remember The Father said "This is my Son, with which I am well pleased". Not "..the Redemmer with which I am well pleased". God had a definate set of ideas He wanted to express, as well as fufilling prophecy. Question: In these Lutheran texts, does Jesus call the Father, "My Creator" ? as opposed to "My Father" ? Also, we are the Bride of Chirst. A Daughter or Redemmer has a hard time being a Groom :) . ___ ___ __ ___ )___ __________________________________ ( | '__| (__ / / / / | Matthew 16:25 | \ | (__)\ __) /__/ / / |"For whoever wishes to save his | \_| Internet: jygabler@ucdavis |life shall lose it; but whoever | | BITNET: jygabler@ucdavis |loses his life for My sake shall| | UUCP: ucdavis!jygabler |find it." | ----------------------------------
nlt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (06/17/89)
Chuck Hedrick writes: > First, let me say that there's one important issue on which I don't > have an answer. That is whether traditional language actually creates > barriers for women, outside a few extremists. That's not a question I > am equipped to answer. Perhaps others will be able to. I can't answer for all women, of course, but I can give some of my own thoughts. I have, not surprisingly, mixed feelings about traditional vs. inclusive language. The traditional *roles* assigned to people according to gender do create barriers for women, and I am happy to see Christianity at last beginning to remove some of these barriers. At the same time, I share Mr. Hedrick's concerns for aesthetics, doctrinal correctness, and faithful presentation of an artist's work as originally created. In some cases, language can be made inclusive very easily. The translation of the Nicene Creed in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer comes to mind: the earlier translation says that Jesus was incarnate "for us men and for our salvation", while the newer translation has "for us and for our salvation". Omitting the word "men" does make the rendering slightly less literal (the Greek has "anthropous"), but the meaning is still clear enough; it is, in fact, clearer than the older phrase in asserting that *all* humans are included. In other cases, inclusive language is awkward, as in the anthem Chuck mentioned (avoiding all use of pronouns) and the names for the Persons of the Trinity. Christianity does have a collection of masculine metaphors for God -- "Father", "King", "Bridegroom", for example; that is part of our inheritance. These do not necessarily have to become exclusive, as long as it is kept carefully in mind that they are metaphors, a few of many possible images for God: God is in some ways like a father or husband or king, but God is not male any more than he literally wears a gold crown. Occasionally, the "male" picture seems to be taken too seriously (as, for instance, in Jason Gabler's article), and at those times some feminine metaphors, or an increased use of gender-independent images, provide a welcome reminder that women too are in the image of God. Renaming the Persons of the Trinity is probably as hard as trying to translate the creeds into non-Platonic language, in that "Father" and "Son" have become technical terms for the first and second Persons. I suspect that these titles are too integral a part of the wording of Christian theology to be changed; as has been pointed out, the commonly-used alternative, "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" suggests modalism, and it may be difficult to find a wording that does not contain some heresy. Probably the best we can do on this is to leave the traditional wording of the threefold Name in place, much as we leave in place the creeds' now-puzzling language of "substance" and "essence", and supplement with explanations and other images. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'They are "the opposite sex" (though why Nancy Tinkham "opposite" I do not know; what is the nlt@cs.duke.edu the "neighbouring sex"?)' -D. L. Sayers {decvax,rutgers}!mcnc!duke!nlt
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (06/17/89)
In article <Jun.10.01.38.40.1989.4171@athos.rutgers.edu> rgo@logic.nsc.com (Ronald Olshausen) writes: >The Lutheran church which I attend has rather recently adopted >what's referred to as 'inclusive language' text for the >traditional Lutheran service. I am in complete agreement with you. Another example of the kind of rephrasing that they have done is the replacement of "Son of God" with "man from heaven". They have done a great deal toward the removal of many of the beautiful truths which the Word of God contains and which people must know if they are to gain a correct understanding of what salvation really is. Many church leaders these days have forgotten that it is God, and not they themselves, who saves people. If they stop using the words of God Himself then they cannot realistically expect that any of those to whom they are talking will receive His gift of salvation. It is wonderful, however, to remember at all times that no matter what they do, with God all things are possible anyway. The Scriptures are full of prophesies that this sort of thing would begin to occur within the corporate church system near the end of time as we know it, i.e. what God refers to as "the end times". Those who are truly saved can relax, knowing that God is still in complete control of everything, that these signs serve as a reminder to us of HIs impecable accuracy in the fore-telling of future events, and that the end, and therefore His return, is very imminent. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (Willard C. Smith) (06/21/89)
Nancy Tinkham writes: > I have, not surprisingly, mixed feelings about traditional vs. inclusive >language. The traditional *roles* assigned to people according to gender >do create barriers for women, and I am happy to see Christianity at last >beginning to remove some of these barriers. At the same time, I share Mr. >Hedrick's concerns for aesthetics, doctrinal correctness, and faithful >presentation of an artist's work as originally created. Recently I have been going over the Joesph Campbell and Bill Moyers discussion, _The Power of Myth_, and in chapter 7 ("The Gift of the Goddess'), there is a short discussion of the Father and Mother images especially pertaining to the "Father Quest." To quote Cambell and Moyers: CAMBELL: Well, the mother's right there. You're born from your mother, and she's the one who nurses you and instructs you and brings you up to the age when you must find your father. Now, the finding of the father has to do with finding your own character and destiny. There's the notion that the character is inherited from the father and the body and very often the mind from the mother. But it's your character that is the mystery, and your character is your destiny. So it is the discovery of your destiny that is symbolized by the father quest. MOYERS: So when you find your father, you find yourself? CAMPBELL: We have the word in English, "at-one-ment" with the father. You remember the story of Jesus lost in Jerusalem when he's a little boy about twelve years old. His parents hunt for him, and when they find him in the temple in conversation with the doctors of the law, they ask "Why did you abandon us this way? Why did you give us this fear and anxiety?" And he says, "Didn't you know I had to be about my father's business?" He's twelve years old--that's the age of the adolescent initiations, finding who you are. End of quote (_The Power of Myth_,1988, p. 166). Feminism aside, I question the damage being done in the name of equality, wherein the "Spiritual Father Quest imagery" is ripped out with nothing of equal force explicitly replacing it. -- 1100 E. Warrenville Rd., Naperville, IL Willard C. Smith (312) 979-0024 att!iwtdr!wcsa "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
lab@crdgw1.ge.com (Lance Beckner) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.10.01.38.40.1989.4171@athos.rutgers.edu>, rgo@berlioz.nsc.com (Ronald Olshausen) writes: > The Lutheran church which I attend has rather recently adopted > what's referred to as 'inclusive language' text for the > traditional Lutheran service. This entails replacing > many gender-specific references, such as 'Father, Son > and Holy Spirit', with 'Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier'. I think that an important question to ask is: Why did God choose to be called "Father" and why did He choose Jesus to be His "Son"? I don't have the answer to this question, but it seems VERY significant if we are going to consider changing the wording. -- Lance A. Beckner INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com FiberCom, Inc. UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab P.O. Box 11966 FAX: (703) 342-5961 Roanoke, VA 24022-1966 PHONE: (703) 342-6700
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.28.01.07.17.1989.22445@athos.rutgers.edu> fibercom!lab@crdgw1.ge.com (Lance Beckner) writes: > >I think that an important question to ask is: Why did God choose to >be called "Father" and why did He choose Jesus to be His "Son"? > >I don't have the answer to this question, but it seems VERY significant >if we are going to consider changing the wording. Those who are concerned about the "inclusive language" issue believe that God did NOT choose this. More accurately, we believe that "Father" and "Son" are only a couple of the MANY terms by which God wishes to be called. In other words: we (well, me anyway) would not deny that God is Father. Or that Jesus is Son. But we claim that it was wrong for human beings to emphasize only these selected names for a God who is so much more than that. credmond@watmath
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (07/04/89)
In article <Jul.1.02.59.48.1989.17864@athos.rutgers.edu> credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) writes: >Those who are concerned about the "inclusive language" issue >believe that God did NOT choose this. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Note Psalms 2:7 and 2 Sam 7:14 where God the Father refers to Himself as the Father of a Son ... I believe these to be references to His relationship with Jesus (So does the author of the book of Hebrews, Hebrews 1:5) >In other words: we (well, me anyway) would not deny that God >is Father. Or that Jesus is Son. But we claim that it was >wrong for human beings to emphasize only these selected names ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >for a God who is so much more than that. > > credmond@watmath I do not see why the underlined portion is so "wrong". The "Father" aspect of God is (in my view) the whole idea behind our relationship with God as Christians. It is the crux of His love, His forgiveness of sin, the sending of the the Messiah to die. The "Son" aspect of God (Jesus more specifically, I suppose we can say) is most crucial to our vision of Jesus' relation to the Father. It is the prime example we have for our relationships with God and many other relationships. To press the fact that don't necessarily see this as "right" and other views as "wrong": The concepts of "Father" and "Son" have been most beneficial in my relationship with the Lord and in understanding his loove and concern for me. After all though, I can see how the male implications can be offensive. But complying with my above feelings, I belive this is one of those things that need to be struggled with. As an example: It took me a long time to undo my "sophist" ideas and believe that the Lord wants me to do good for the reward I will recieve. :) Jason Gabler ccjason@castor.ucdavis.edu jygabler@ucdavis