Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!christian
From: jlpflederer@watmum.UUCP (Janet L. Pflederer)
Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Gender in religion
Message-ID: <8493@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20-Jan-87 02:23:08 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.8493
Posted: Tue Jan 20 02:23:08 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 20:45:19 EST
Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 51
Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP

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]