www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology feminizing the Creed

The way the Nicene Creed is recited at my GO church, and the way it is printed in the Divine Liturgy Hymnal, disturbs me. It reads in part, "who for us and for our salvation..." I smell a bowing to feminist sensibilities. The Greek version (forgive my rusty Greek) contains the word anthropois, and this English version has failed to translate that word. Liberal RC churches or at least well-meaning, yet ignorant ones, do the same thing to the Creed. I think our liturgists and any hierarchs who would approve something like this have a lot of nerve to think they can change the Creed to make it politically correct.

Do I not have the right to bring this up to the parish council president, and point this out to him, or would I have to contact the Metropolis?

Before you make your presentation, my advice to you is to correct your spelling and pronounciation: the word used is 'anthropous', not 'anthropois'.

Anthropous is accusitive case, plural form.

However, you are correct in that the parish you are in is not using the version of the Creed that the Archdiocese approved!

http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/creed.asp?printit=yes

"...Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man..."

On the bottom of this sheet is the following blurb:

"The Official Translation of the Confession of Faith adopted by the Holy Eparchial Synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America"

So, this is something that should be brought to the attention of your local Powers That Be. I only correct your pronunciation because you know how these things are---a small mistake like that and people will discuss your grammatical and pronunciation error, and not the problem itself!

Good luck!

+Fr. Chris

Father, bless. Thank you for your help. I will do some homework and have a talk with the parish council.

This is a question I've heard bits of before, especially with all the hoopla over the new translation for the Ruthenian-Byzantine Catholics.

Isn't "men" properly "andros" (androus?)but rendered in the plural (my Greek is quite rusty).

"anthopous" should be translated closer to "people", as in the current English understanding of "people", where 40 years ago we might have said "men".

Therefore, "for us" isn't so much bowing to inclusive language as it is reflecting modern English usage. We never say "men" meaning "men and women" in modern English anymore. Like it or not, language changes.

To cover my butt, I'm a linguist, and a sociolinguist at that, so I'm just looking at usage, and not politics (even if politics lead to current usage).

Marc:

You and I have had similar training, but obviously have trained at much different periods of time. I would immediately argue that the rule of "economy of language"--something my professors regularly ranted about--comes in here. We never use two words when one will do. My early training was in teaching standard English in the public schools. The early battles over this type of movement in language began during my undergraduate years. And the arguments made by those who wanted to introduce this type of thing were not linguistic, but political.

Beyond that, however, there is the theological teaching behind this particular construction. It's been discussed in these fora before. We go to the idea found in St. Paul that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, man or woman, etc." God has many sons--that is, heirs to the Kingdom--He has no daughters. Each of us is made a "son" by Baptism. There is no other category; we are sons and heirs whether in human form male or female. A meditation we do at my parish each Good Friday has a woman in the crowd watching Jesus go off to His Crucifixion comments about how being a "son" of God makes her feel--how exalted, how raised up in a culture where women are considered property and have no voice or status. To insist on the doubling up blurs this profound theological teaching that the Church has struggled so hard to maintain for the past 2000 years.

It's interesting that Rome's instruction on the proper translation of liturgical and biblical texts tells us that feminist language cannot convey the truths of the Faith. One such mention that comes immediately to mind is the use of the pseudo-word "humankind" (rather than "mankind") that seems to pop up so often in liturgical prayers even when it isn't printed in the books.

The question I posed once before I'll pose again. Is the need for this double usage designed to create a separate category in the Kingdom when Revelation teaches us that such separation is precisely what Christ came to eliminate? Are men thus heirs and women not? We have to be careful in our answer because we are charged with passing the Faith to our children the same way we found it, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.

In Christ,

BOB

Yes, language does change naturally.

But sometimes language changes deliberately. Sometimes, people try to achieve political or ideological goals by changing language: either by using different words or by redefining words.

The changes in liturgical and Biblical language often reflects the latter, in my opinion. There is an ilk in Christianity that is trying very hard to change people's thinking along feminist or politically correct lines. They (and those who choose not to oppose them) are using the tool of changing language in order to achieve their ends.

The issue of using "people" instead of "men" (or "humankind" instead of "mankind") is, in my opinion, an example of this. The people who push initially and the hardest for this are (from what I have heard and read) usually upset over "patriarchy" (men) dominating society, the Church and religion. However, not long after changing the language to be more "gender equal," some other changes eventually creep in -- like calls for female priests or a feminized deity, etc. If this kind of thing isn't opposed and stopped, the result is the kind of doctrinal and liturgical mess that currently exists in several of the more liberal denominations of the Church (such as the Episcopalians).

There are people (like myself) who do not want to see that in our churches. So, there is outcry and suspicion when changes in liturgical and Biblical language seem to be hallmarks of ideological change rather than the results of the natural evolution of language.

-- John