Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!rutgers!topaz!christian
From: christian@topaz.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Gender in religion
Message-ID: <8522@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 21-Jan-87 04:04:26 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.8522
Posted: Wed Jan 21 04:04:26 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Jan-87 19:43:53 EST
Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 36
Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP
In-Reply-To: <8493@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>

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