www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Women and Men: Created Equal

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..." [Romans, ch. 12]

This, of course, is inspired word, and the gospel by which we live, but the question remains as to how it is to be applied. We must still live in the world, and must sometimes make decisions on living in the world based on Christian faith. Look at the problem of slavery. The so-called 3/5 rule was a rule of the secular American society - what should a Christian have said or done about it? In the 1860's a bloody war was fought over the issue of human slavery, and many Christians did, in fact, rebuke the "evil secular abolitionists" with 1 Cor 7:21: "Were you a slave whne you were called? Do not be concerned ... " Would someone who fought to free the slaves, and to abolish slavery have been wrong?

Are you equating the usage of all inclusive words such as, "man", "men", and "mankind", with the sin of slavery?!? Do I understand this correctly?

Fr. David,

You wrote:


That doesn't justify changing the Creed or the Divine Liturgy. We, the laity, must live in the world and the world is doing its darndest to make us conform to it. Shouldn't there be a place for us to go to experience heaven on earth so that we can then go out and transform the world? The Liturgy isn't the world!

In Christ,
lm

Father David,

Much like the Declaration of Independence, your view of the history of the Civil War is 'interesting'.

The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. Yes slavery was one issue of difference between the North and South. But do you really believe that in the 1860s the whites in the North laid down their lives for the black slaves? The Civil War was fought over what every war is fought over, and that is to defend ones culture against another. Slavery was a small part of that culture. But you are giving it way too much weight. If I had to pick one reason for the war it would be States Rights. Are you aware that 90% of the confederate soldiers did not own slaves? Are you aware of the tariffs and trade issues of the time? Slavery was very far down on the list of reasons. Was it a non-issue, no, but there were many other more pertinent reasons.

But back to the topic of this thread.

We could throw around Biblical verses all night long, but I'm pretty sure that God had it right. "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them "man."

Do you disagree?

Monomakh

Yes even the President would agree --

President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

Father David is doing exactly what Rome has said not to do. He is attempting to translate something not based upon the meaning of the original but on the basis of what he thinks is wrong with American society.

Has anyone else noticed that Father David consistently ignores the Vatican documents that are so very clear in saying �no� to inclusive language?

Father David is conforming the Church to the world.

I know of zero females in the Ruthenian Catholic Church who are offended by the usage of the words "men", "man", and "mankind" in the Liturgy or office readings. In fact, I know of many females in our Church (including my wife) who are offended by the inclusive language that has now begun to sweep through every facet of our prayer. I am looking for any laity of the female gender who approves of inclusive language--and the reasons you approve of it.

I know that there are pockets of radical feminists who are very vocal about all things anti-male. I am not referring to these groups. I am asking the average wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, who sits in the pew.

Peace and blessings,
Recluse

Recluse,

Hope you don't mind. I am responding, but it will not meet your request. Here is my PERSONAL take.

I am NOT offended by the use of the word men, man, and mankind. Actually, I am offended the sacred, the Divine Liturgy, would be changed and I am not giving any understanding to the changes. I am offended at inclusive language. And this offense is on many levels.

I am concerned that people think the plight of women (and men and children) has been improved. Of course, individuals and society need redeemed as much as any other age. Forcing/encouraging women to seperate themselves from their children is exploitation of women. Abortion is a great exploitation of women. I cannot tell you the damage done. The damage is far reaching. The dear children that the women have after/before an abortion are even impacted. Now, there are people who know abortion to be wrong, but they still view children as a burden. They view them as something to avoid. This attitude plagues most of society today�..I understand what is going on in the world as an attack on the nuclear family. Children need a MOTHER and a FATHER, not two of the same.

What does all this have to do with inclusive language? My concern is changes in the Divine Liturgy mimic what the world is doing. It could be the motives for changing the DL are not the same motives as the world. If so, why can�t I be told? I have made many requests.

Inclusive language is an attack on my person as a woman. It makes us all the "SAME". Like the Borg. I am not a MALE/MAN. I like being treated as a woman and not just one of the guys. My vocation as a woman is not the same as my husband. My husband and I are different. I think inclusive language blurs the lines of my identity as a woman.

Now, something stirs in me that inclusive language is an attack on my Redeemer, Jesus Christ and an attack on the Holy Mother of GOD. Somehow, I think this is an attack (unknown by some) on the Incarnation, God became man. (Remember we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves) No, I cannot substantiate this sense. But, this is a real concern for me�.If some worry about the offense people may take at the use exclusive language, don't worry your self. GOD has His design, and I trust Him. The DL has the INCARNATION (MAN), THE MOTHER OF GOD (WOMAN). If anyone dare say the Church excludes women, just look to the Blessed and Ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of our GOD. Don�t abandon what GOD has done. Don�t deny Jesus his role as man. Don�t deny Mary her role as woman. THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY!!!!!!!!!

Those who think that I fuss/complain about the changes need to understand this weighs heavy on me. Everything about me is against inclusive language. My concerns are not complaining. And, if you believe that to be true, then you treat me as irrelevant.

Corsair,

What you say of Lincoln is absolutely true--that he wanted first and foremost to preserve the Union. If preserving the union within the Byzantine Church and with Orthodoxy had been a more important principle than the abolition of unjust discrimination against women, abolishing unjust discrimination against women (unborn ones in particular) could have been a consequence of proper Liturgy. However, having taken the easy way out, by getting rid of so called "sexist" langauge (one form of modernism)--the Liturgy is weakened and the Union is destroyed--a very un-Lincolnian way of handling things.

May God bless you abundantly. Your thinking is exactly in line with that of my wife--and many other women I have spoken to.

How feminism can be thought compatible with a Church that appeals to the Gospel, however, is one of those contemporary mysteries that has not yet found a satisfactory explanation. Ideological feminism consciously reduces human relationships to power relationships; the feminists in the Church make no bones about wanting the "power" which they believe bishops and the priests unfairly possess; yet it often seems to be the bishops and the priests who seem least critical of the hostility that is nevertheless directed squarely towards them and their functions in the Church.

Read the entire article at:
http://www.adoremus.org/98-04_whitehead.htm

It seems to me that feminism is just an offspring of Marxism: just replace the struggle of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie with that of female vs. male. Both ideologies are incompatible with Christianity. Notice how progressive clergy embraced Marxism in the sixties and now they embrace feminism.

Yes. And it is painfully obvious when I listen to clergy speak, or read their articles, and they dance around certain words. I have seen where priests cannot even say that Jesus became "man"--they use the words "human being" instead. And they will consistently use the word "humankind" instead of "mankind" (now it has become "us all").

It tears me apart inside because it is insulting to women. I cannot tell you how many women have approached me to say they are insulted and feel violated by inclusive language--yet some of our leaders feel they are repairing some kind of long standing damage done to women in the Church. I am really perplexed by this. This radical feminist mindset is so foreign to me.

It is a mystery to me, too. And once upon a time I was a card carrying feminist.