"Inclusive language" and gender in religion

[Voronwë the Faithful]

When I read "small step for a man", etc., I am "hearing" the all-inclusive form of the word. Perhaps I shouldn't... perhaps Armstrong WAS only referring to the male gender, and WAS only thinking that walking on the moon was a monumental moment for MALES.

Actually, according to Armstrong himself, when he said "one small step for [a] man" (with the "a" being virtually indistinguishable) he was referring to someone of the male gender (e.g., himself). But when he said "one giant leap for Mankind" I'm sure that he meant it more generally as the human race.

For the sake of accuracy.

But because of my profession, and the fact that I still see so much disparity in the way that women are treated in the work world, I am particularly sensitive to issues like this. I do think, for instance, that eliminating the exclusive use of masculine pronouns when making gender-neutral references can help alter the attitudes that continue to lead to that kind of treatment.

And I'm as likely to refer to God as She as He. But that is because I am a maverick and a danger to us all.

[anthriel]

Yes. I have noticed that.

[Primula Baggins]

Anthy, I posted upthread about my experience when I went to a couple of church services without inclusive language after decades of hearing inclusive language at church.

When they first made the change, when I was a teenager, I was grumpy about some of the changes to my favorite hymns and stumbling over new wordings in familiar prayers. I accepted the change but didn't see what difference it would make; I knew "mankind" meant me and "he" meant me and "sons of God" meant me.

But.

When I went back to that old "man" language, heard it again for the first time in a long time, I did feel excluded. It does make a difference. Maybe not for adults, but for children. Maybe not for people who have been attending the church for years, but for a new person seeking fellowship.

Maybe not in the head, but in the heart.

[Jnyusa]

I believe that when the human race is meant, the word Man should be capitalized.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Not actually so, Jn; it depends on the style being used. Generally the trend is to capitalize less and less.

[anthriel]

Well, like I said, it doesn't matter either way to me. If some people feel excluded, then perhaps it is worth changing the old wording! Although that older stuff does read more like poetry to me... the newer, more generic type phrasing seems a bit less... oh, I don't know. It seems a bit generic.

The examples you gave seemed fine, even to my "new" ear... not that much of a difference, really, in the feel of the passages.

Perhaps it's just all what you are used to.

[MithLuin]

I think "brothers and sisters" is often a more accurate translation for the Greek word that was traditionally translated "brother" anyway. We have a gender-neutral word in English - siblings - but no one uses it much, so it would sound awfully stilted. It also carries none of the connotations of "brotherhood" and "family love" and "black power" that words like "brothers" and "sisters" do.

Re-examining language is always a good idea. Sometimes, original meaning and current meaning are different, and so some "updating" needs to happen. Sometimes, you find better ways to say something.

And sometimes it comes out awful

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved and strengthened me" just sounds stupid. Say "a wretch" and get it over with, already

I also have concerns about dropping the word "men" in "for us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven..." When it becomes "for us and for our salvation" there is the possibility of becoming a little too cozy in our exclusivity. Jesus came for us, you know, for the people in this church - not all those other people. "Us Men" preserves the universality of the message - he came for every single solitary person, and don't you forget that . I don't mind changing it...but I don't want to lose that aspect of the meaning. Making it "for all mankind and our salvation" would be universal, but less personal.

I don't have any qualms about using Him to refer to God. Jesus taught us to call God our Father, and well, if I'm going to use a pronoun for my Father, it's going to be "Him." I know that God goes beyond gender...but I still think of my relationship with God in terms of his masculinity.

I was turned off to "inclusive" language for the Trinity when I participated in prayers that just made everything too durn vague. I'm not sure I can remember what it was now, but instead of saying "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" it was translated to something else. Since then, I've heard "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Advocate," which wasn't as bad, but is still very vague - those are titles, not names! (Or rather, it's what they do, not who they are.)

As Rodia points out, there is always Mary! She is probably a main reason I have never needed to call God my mother - I have a wonderful spiritual mother in Mary .

I think that making language inclusive is a valid concern in preparing a text, but that it is secondary to, well, the meaning of the text. You still have to be clear, and you still have to say the same thing.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't know, Mith—"us men" just doesn't sound like me, really, as I've never been and never will be a man. But I don't hear any cozy exclusivity in "for us, and for our salvation."

As for God being genderless, well, that seems factual to me. Jesus had plenty of cultural reasons for praying as he did; I don't think that means we in our different culture are locked into that. We are not false to God if we do not insist that God must be male.

I don't have the benefit of Mary, I guess, who is no more important than one of the disciples in my own church tradition. So there aren't, really, women in the church tradition unless we make a point of noticing them, and unless we make a point of including ourselves in the life and word of the church.

(The change to Amazing Grace makes no sense to me at all. That is some kind of PC thing, not an effort to reach out.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My goodness. I would be terribly disappointed to hear Amazing Grace sung like that. It completely changes the meaning.

[MithLuin]

Well, yes, Prim, I see your point - which is why I am not opposed to changing it. I just am not sure I like the change you mentioned. The language of theology has to be so very precise, to keep people from going off on odd tangents with it. But I think that you are right, in that "us men" causes some women to jar momentarily. Not me, but then, I did grow up with it.

Heheh, and while I know that Catholics get accused of worshipping Mary, we really don't. She just gets first place (in honor and prominence) among all the saints, so devotion to her is much more personal and involved than devotion to the apostles. And she is so good about looking out for her children!

[Primula Baggins]

Just wanted to say that I don't believe that Catholics "worship" Mary at all, and that she is respected in Lutheran tradition. But we don't have saints at all—"saints" in my church means all who've died in the faith, and we don't pray to them or ask for intercession from them.

So Mary, like the apostles, is viewed as a historical figure rather than a spiritual presence, and she is not so much revered as honored.

[MithLuin]

How sad! I mean, I like historical figures, too, but they aren't going to do much for me right now.... I guess I forget that not all Christians view the saints in the same way. I don't just think St. Francis lived a good life, and had good prayers (though I do think those things as well). I... well, I can ask him to pray for me, to help me out. It's not that I can't get through the day without them, it's just that I am aware of being surrounded by a cloud of witnesses. There is a....nearness to the saints, I suppose, whereas other historical figures seem remote and distant....you don't often dialogue with them!

How does your church handle the "unofficial" saints - people who have died more recently? Are they...more present?

And Prim, I know you know - it's just one of those common misconceptions....

[Primula Baggins]

Well (as I am on my third two-year trip through confirmation class, this time with my youngest), I can say that Lutherans don't really know "where" the dead are. There is a tradition that they're in heaven right now, but the Bible isn't clear on that; we're not supposed to be "raised up" until the "last days," whenever that might be.

When, in prayers, we mention those who have died, it's generally an expression of thanksgiving for their lives and prayers for the people left behind to mourn. We don't pray for the dead, because we believe that they are already with God. They don't feel "close" because, well, we don't believe they are. We don't know to what extent, if any, those who have died are or could be still aware of this world.

It's more like—we and they are all worshiping the same God, just in different places.

I can understand that this seems much less personal. It is. But my church emphasizes each individual's relationship with God, and there is no intermediary—saints or priests or Mary—in that relationship.

[anthriel]

This is such a great discussion... so many on this board are! (although perhaps the posts like the one I am making should/could be moved somewhere else?)



I like the "flatness" of the organization of our church, too... I have been reading a book (obsessively) for the last few days about Anne Boleyn, and how her desire to be wed to King Henry VIII, along with his desire to get his way in everything, helped lead to the formation of the Church of England... the Episcopal church, the one in which I was raised.

In the book, they were talking about one of the biggest shocks of the new ideas of religion was that people COULD talk directly to God. That there COULD be a personal relationship. I am so used to that idea that the thought that it could have been considered shocking at one point is a good reminder to me that some thoughts I cherish as "old and traditional" were, at some point, very new and challenging.

But... there is something so evocative about Mary. Last year, we had a Christmas luncheon at church, and the whole theme of the thing was "Mary". (Yes, in a non-Catholic church!) Her upbringing, her faith, her humanity.. and her almost unbelievable loss. We had several young girls sing for us, and several of them were 14 years old... apparently, about the same age Mary was when Christ was born.

So... even if she was just a historical figure, she sure was an amazing person.

[Holbytla]

I have been reading a book (obsessively) for the last few days about Anne Boleyn

Woah.
I just read "The Other Boleyn Girl", by Philippa Gregory.
It was semi-historical and semi-fiction. It was a page turner.

[anthriel]

Who was the other Boleyn girl? Mary?

[Holbytla]

Yes Anthy, Mary was the other Boleyn girl. In fact she purportedly had children by the king and was the king's favored before Anne came along.
It's a very sordid history.

Mary Boleyn

[truehobbit]

I've never had problems with grammatical inclusiveness or lack thereof in mass. At least for as long as I can remember we've always said "sisters and brothers" in church, and I'd hate it if they PCed good old songs. I can't think of any non-PC examples from the top of my head, probably because it has never bothered me.

I usually say "they" in daily speech in English, e.g. "Would someone like to read their homework", but I know it's sloppy speaking in a way.

Btw, in German the church is "she" - and apparently men don't have any problems feeling included in that.

Rodia (hope you are still around to read this) I had no idea that Polish worked so much like German! I won't know what to do with it, I'm sure, but I'd love to know the Polish word for generic Man and mankind. I was always told that this was quite unique to German (maybe people just meant unique in comparison to English) - our "Mensch" is one of the most beautiful words in the language, I think (even though there's no rhyme for it), and I've always been rather disappointed with English for not knowing the concept.
(Much worse, IMO, than the much quoted opposite example of German not having a word for "fluffy". )

And just like in Polish, "Mensch" is male in grammatical gender, while "Menschheit" is female grammatically.

[Primula Baggins]

That's fascinating, hobby, but we must never forget that the German word for "girl," Mädchen, is neutral. Storm the barricades!

"They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is actually allowed by some of my editing clients now. I usually can't bring myself to do it and recast the sentence to avoid the problem. Alternating "he" and "she" is a good choice, I think. And in fact there are times when it really helps—when you're discussing generalities with more than one person involved.

[axordil]

I'm a fan of the they/them constructions whenver possible. Richard Lederer talked me into it by reminding me that it's actually a Middle English usage, and so not without precedent.