Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: inclusive language text Message-ID: Date: 10 Jun 89 08:29:51 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 113 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu 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 What I'd like to do is to draw the line between historical documents and new things.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.