www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations

I think that we can always use footnotes to explain different passages. For example, in sentence 1 below, man refers to Christ and at the same time also refers to both men and women, not just the male gender.

1. "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked"

2. "Whoever does not follow the counsel of the ungodly is blessed."

In sentence (1), the relative clause following 'man' is a less ambiguous construction than sentence (2) where "counsel of the ungodly is blessed" could lead to a misunderstanding especially by English Learners (ELs).

From an EL perspective, sentence (1) is more simple and clear. In the USA and in Britain, there are many non-native speakers of English who struggle with the English language. We must write our sentences so that they can understand them. Sentence (1) retains the correct meaning, is simple, easy to sing, and beautiful too.

:::applause:::

Well said. The proper place for interpretation of a translated text is in the notes, not in rewording the text itself.

-- John

Three questions but I've transfered them to the Does "Blazhen Muzh" mean "Blessed is the One"? thread link .

Really?!?

It sounds a bit kumbaya-ish to me.

I actually did not say that "us all" and "ALL of our human brethren" are not comprehensive but that they are not as precise as man/mankind.

"baptizable human beings" excludes those already baptized, "boy-chiks, and girl-chiks" excludes adults.

The "us all" is from the RDL. If I say X hates us all do I mean:

a) X hates all those reading this.
b) X hates all forum members.
c) ... all forum readers.
d) ... all humans living on earth.
e) ... all humanity, every person who has ever lived, is living and will live, individually and collectively and corporately.

If the answer is clearly and unambiguously e then it is not necessary to have it as "ALL of our human brethren" (and I believe that "brethren" is itself on the hit-list of some inclusivity zealots).

I think it is also essential that whatever would replace Man/Mankind terminology is capable of functioning consistently and with the proper meaning across the already established range of usages. As I've written before concerning the rendering in the RDL (sorry to repeat it but it's how I'd say it again here):



Dn. Anthony

Dr. John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Exactly! This is precisely the problem with the move to eliminate "man," its forms and compounds, and the generic male pronouns from the English language, and from biblical and liturgical texts in particular. Some people are deeply opposed to (or at least most uncomfortable with) the scriptural and ecclesial norm of male headship, and see this as an opportunity to challenge it.

I am not suggesting that language is static, or that the history of a particular term should control in all cases. What I'm suggesting is that one should not simply dismiss the historical context altogether, particularly when that context is being misrepresented or misinterpreted (either willfully or through ignorance.) How can one have a discussion about what words mean today without knowing what they have meant to this point? Language is one of the things that unite us across the generations; it allows us to communicate with those who have gone before and those with whom we now live. It is, like most human things, an imperfect tool but it is not to be trifled with, and certainly not based upon worldviews that are inconsistent with Christian teaching.

In our day and age, do people really hear the generic �man� and think of a male? I know there are studies that suggest as much. (I also know that studies can be conducted to �prove� a lot of things, based on the way in which they are constructed by the �scientists.�) Is our putative tendency to visualize males when we read �for us men and for our salvation� a consequence of living in a radically sexist culture? Perhaps. But perhaps, instead, it underscores certain truths about human nature, truths that we are unwilling to confront in our increasingly androgynous culture? Why do we assume that the authority of the past is always and everywhere inferior to the authority of our enlightened contemporary selves?

The assumption in this discussion seems to be that language shapes our culture. I don�t think that�s entirely correct � it is also shaped by that culture. The prior question, then, is whether that culture is worth preserving. I think it is, at least in part, because I think it expresses (albeit darkly, as through a glass) certain Christian truths about man and men and women. To the extent that the culture articulates untruths and these are instantiated in our language, the culture needs to be reformed and the language changed. The standard is our faith or, perhaps better, the Church. Is that what is happening here? I don�t think so.

What I object to is the rejection by fiat of a certain term or family of terms by a small group of people whose motivation is an egalitarianism that is fundamentally anti-Christian. The Bible and our Christian faith are not sexless. They assert that there are differences between men and women and that these differences are not unimportant, pace Maximos. Man is the norm. Man is the head of his wife and his family. He is the Melchizedek of his household. It was from man that woman was created. She was created to help him. She is to be subject to him the way the Church is subject to Christ. He is ultimately responsible to God for the use (and misuse) of creation. (It�s unfortunate that I need to say this, but please note that this does not mean autocratic, violent, selfish domination of women by men; it means loving, sacrificial service. It is a kingship, not a tyranny)

There is still more to say, and I wish I had the time to think about these issues more deeply. But I will say that I would like to see someone develop a patristic, truly Orthodox articulation of male headship and bring it to bear on this discussion.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Since in the Latin tradition there were quite a few tumultuous removals and changes, we get a lot of really good anecdotes about this sort of thing. The gist of one story circles about when the absolute wrong time to remove a fence or wall is: when you don't know why it was put there in the first place. That is, if you don't know the function of the wall (keep people in? keep people out? look nice? mark land?) and remove it because you don't like it doesn't mean that the original reason isn't going to come clambering over the hill to steal your sheep. Only after the original function and motivations of the wall builders is known can a decision be made regarding whether the wall can stay or go.

That's a round-a-bout way of saying that our culture has absolutely no clue what sex and gender really mean and has been working furiously to remove all reference to gender complementarity for at least 30 years in the Latin Church in America. It's also a somewhat round-a-bout way of saying that many Christians, fed by the Church and Culture alike, also haven't grasped the full meaning of gender and sex but at least have some realization that, well, maybe this is important and we should be careful about tearing down walls. If we did grasp it fully, none of this would be an issue and we'd have wonderful arguments and logic about why X and Y and Z so P and Q.

Also, though I am only passingly familiar with the linguistic science, I think an argument could be made that the relatively recent moves toward gender neutrality are not natural evolutions in the English language. Rather, I think a case could be made that these moves are the product of an ideological bias being applied to basic education in order to FORCE the language to change a certain way. This, however, isn't really here nor there.

Peace,
Mike J.

Christ is Risen!!

I hear what folks are saying about the whole language issue. While most agree that language changes over time, and culture does also - especially when there convergent cultures in a geographic area - we have to look at what the actual language (and cultural) uses are.

Brother Theophilus notes:
"The assumption in this discussion seems to be that language shapes our culture. I don�t think that�s entirely correct � it is also shaped by that culture."

From a linguistic and scientific perspective: Right on Target!

Further: "The prior question, then, is whether that culture is worth preserving. I think it is, at least in part, because I think it expresses (albeit darkly, as through a glass) certain Christian truths about man and men and women. To the extent that the culture articulates untruths and these are instantiated in our language, the culture needs to be reformed and the language changed. The standard is our faith or, perhaps better, the Church. Is that what is happening here? I don�t think so."

Agreed to a great extent. Unfortunately, language and culture are not subject to: "needs to be reformed and the language changed."

They evolve based upon the usage of the users/people.

For example, there are words that were "four-letter" words in my youth that were absolutely not useable in public and especially in mixed-gender gatherings. These words are now not only commonplace, but are used on TV. (The word: "sucks" comes immediately to mind. It's everywhere now. Hate it.)

Hitler attempted to 'purify' German by excluding all foreign words like: telephone, radio, car, truck, etc. and substituted German words. "Truck" became "Lastcraftwagen", literally: "load bearing powered vehicle". "Telephon" became "Fernsprecher" literally "distance speaker/ing". Despite the power of the Nazi state, these words were used from about 1935 to 1945 and disappeared in 1947 when the Germans were sure that Hitler and his cohenkies were all dead and not coming back.

The fact is: language is what it is based upon the use of the speakers. While past 'meanings' have their validity that may carry into contemporary usage, there is really no way to 'enforce' a particular usage and meaning among contemporary speakers.

Linguistic scholars rely upon large databases of material to describe how language is used and in what context specific words appear. For example: "guys" in 1950s American English referred to "men"; in contemporary "Standard American English" it also includes any people included in a referent population. (I.e., "Hey, you guys ought to try this new Pepsi" with "guys" referring to every potential Pepsi-drinker present - regardless of gender.) It's not a mandated meaning, just an assessment of how the language is used. And with "media", there are all sorts of pressures on linguistic usage.

Most linguistic scientists use the "Brown Corpus" (Brown University, Providence, RI) as the touchstone for what contemporary Standard American English (SAE) is all about. The Brown Corpus uses everything from the New York Times to transcriptions of "call-in" radio to constitute the database. And, though I haven't check lately, I think: "man" generally refers to "males" with an alternate meaning of "people".

For Brother Mike J. from Champaign, I understand your points. The issues, as you note them are:

"That's a round-a-bout way of saying that our culture has absolutely no clue what sex and gender really mean and has been working furiously to remove all reference to gender complementarity for at least 30 years in the Latin Church in America."

That may be. The problem is, if the people use "reference to gender complementarity" in a certain way, it's not the peoples' fault (as it were) if it fails to incorporate a specific "understanding", but rather a failure of the teaching entities to make clear the distinctions that they want to make.

It is clear to all of us that there are real distinctions between men and women as persons (Vive la difference!), and that these distinctions must be both recognized and also acknowledged as part of God's plan for salvation. The main issue is how do we understand these issues, and what effort are we as a Church making to hear what both men and women experience as baptized members of the Church.

To refer back to the Council of Poopy-Doopy in elevendy-four hundred isn't really helpful. We need to ask regular men and women in the church today. And not just the anointed experts. Otherwise we are rejecting certain people's status as baptized Christians in favor of a hierarchical "system" that is immune to God's real people. And that "sucks". (Still HATE that term!)

May the Risen Christ drown us in His Love!!!

Blessings to all.

Dr John

Tradition is not helpful? Poopy-doopy?
If this advice was followed, there would not be the RDL today.

I am unfamiliar with the nomenclature of your faith. Could you provide some further information and source materials (in addition to the Brown Corpus, with which I am also unfamiliar) so that I may be more au fait with this particular assembly?

Rereading your post, it may be that I am simply unfamiliar with your faith, whatever it is.

Fr. Serge

Dr. John:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

I understand the stance of linguistic scientists and the idea of constantly changing language. The problem is that Rome has given us an instruction about how liturgical and biblical translations are to be done. In addition, the relevant dicastery has stated that only standard English can fully communicate the fullness of the Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church. Rome has taken aim at the gender-neutral movements in the English language and told the translators to stop moving in that direction. The second problem is that Rome wants a single English language translation to be used by all who worship in English and does not think it needs to necessarily meet the demands of us in the United States. Cardinal Arinze, for example, the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is one whose native tongue is not English but whose community worships in English. It is for these "anglophone" people that the translation must be done. I believe that is one reason that the ICEL was radically overhauled: their translations had become less translation and more interpretation.

It is for some of these problems that the second edition of the Roman Missal was refused the necessary "recognitio" for its introduction and all the time and money spent on it was wasted. So now the third edition is in the process of translation.

I think that the issue addressed here is that the BCC translators are going down the road the Latin Church's English language people took some 30+ years ago. That road has been shown to be deficient in transferring doctrine and worship to the faithful and Rome has finally taken a more firm approach to this issue because of it.

In Christ,

BOB

Dr. John, I hope I can answer these points succinctly.

We all seem to agree that the connection between language and culture is complex and subtle: they feed one another in ways we may not understand. This being the case, it is even more important that the Church utilize language that contains within itself the doctrinal messages that NEED to be witnessed to in the culture at large. As I said above, our culture wishes to erase ideas of complementarity in the sexes (use gender neutral language everywhere, men and women are not really different at all except for accidents in the plumbing, gender and sex are distinct and separable/mixable with the homosexual message at large... I could go on) and I for one take very seriously JP2's theology of the body and the idea of gender complementarity. It is at odds with our culture for good reasons.

If there has been a failure on the teaching authorities on this item till now, well, it needs to be remedied. Just giving in to the rising tide of our secular culture (i.e. switching over to gender neutrality) seems much more like sweeping the issues under the rug and ignoring this teaching point.

I find your final paragraph rather disturbing. Last I checked, tradition mattered quite a bit. The use of an elevated and dignified English in the liturgy is supposed to convey that. Your appeal to what some nebulous group of people can or can't engage with seems to, at one and the same time, disrespect the nebulous group of people's intelligence and promote some form of anti-clericalism. Neither of these ideas track well with the Catholic faith. Besides, as Recluse pointed out, if this advice had been taken, this entire revision of the Divine Liturgy would not have occurred.

Theophan points out, in more detail, the lessons of the Latin Church in America. There are reasons the first ICEL translation is being canned - a translation that needed (for the sake of those people who need to hear modern language, so they say) to translate "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "and also with you." What, what's that about a spirit? what happened? The texts of the Prefaces have been particularly mauled as have been the Eucharistic prayers, even. All for what? so people could hear a supposedly "modern" translation? No, this idea has been tried and rejected. I'd hope the Christian East, in addition to liturgical scholars and translators, would learn at least this good lesson from the mistakes of the West.

Regards,
Mike J.

The very fact that there are folks from all over (mostly) North America as well as other parts of the world that have English as their native language shows that linguistic commonality is becoming more "standard". But there are surely elements that are germane to geographic areas. "boot" in England vs. "trunk" of a car in the U.S.; "tonic" as soft drink in metro Boston vs. Soda/Pop/SodaPop/SoftDrink elsewhere(s). Language varies from place to place. I am recalled of an early English rendering of the Gospels where the woman who lost the coin was talked about as a woman who lost "a dime" (the economists and theologians got together on this one!!) and we seminarians chuckled aloud about this woman who tore the house apart looking for a dime. We thought: what a dits!! This rendering got 86'd soon thereafter.

The point is this: we need to get the message across. To hyperfocus on "man", "woman", "person", "people" etc. ISN'T the real deal although some with axes to grind go nuts about it as if the faith were dependent on the wording. Clearly, Christ's message is intended to mandate our adherence to "love God; love one's neighbor" in our daily lives. If we say "whoever loves God is blessed" rather than "the man who loves God is blessed", is this really a problem? While the "traditional" wording is certainly comfortable for many, the alternative wording is also valid and not 'heretical'.

And where I work (with a LOT of the unchurched - including druggies and 'sexual minorities' and 'fringe people' living in subsistence poverty), I need to use whatever language I can to have these folks hear Christ's message that God actually LOVES everybody. They won't hear me tell them not to "slam" or "hook up" if they think I'm from another universe. They aren't going to listen if they think I'm giving them a 'canned message' from "the man".

I KNOW (and I mean really KNOW) the "et cum spiritu tuo" / "and with your spirit" language referring to the imprint of ordination to Holy Orders. But, in truth, most non educated Christians haven't a clue about this. So, as with our younger kids, is this really something I need to focus on? The fact is, we're back to the basic Commandments stuff: love God, love your neighbor; don't screw your boy/girlfriend before the seal of commitment; don't deceive on your stock portfolio; don't lie/cheat to get a business advantage; don't dissemble to hook up with your neighbor's spouse or to get a lock-down on your neighbor's property; don't go to court and lie through your teeth; and don't neglect to observe the Sabbath and take time to rest and sleep so that your body will have strength to provide for yourself and your family. (You get the idea!)

The stuff about "Blessed is the man" or "Blessed is He.." or "whoever does this is blessed" or "Those who.... are blessed" is cutesy stuff for those already in the Church. And we use it against one another, doing the 'theological one-ups-manship' stuff. But for going out to "go get 'em", the niceties are irrelevant - we've got to use language that the ordinary folks in the mall use and understand.

The fact is: Christ told us that we MUST go out and preach to all nations. If we don't do this, and make use of any and every tool available to us (Malcolm X told his folks: "by any means necessary"), then we are in deep doo-doo with the Lord. We can be as "typikon-kosher" as humanly possible, but if we are NOT bringing people to the Lord, then we are completely useless - however Orthodox/orthodox we may be. And the "awesome judgement seat of the Lord" is going to come down on our heads.

It's using contemporary terms, it's going to "where they are", it's being non-judgemental and welcoming, it's letting people see how happy and fulfilled we are as Christians, that will bring people to Christ. The Scripture and the Traditions are TOOLS that we use to spread the message of Christ's Gospel. When the tools become the static objects of veneration, we've missed the mark. And the judgement of Christ will bear witness to our Pharisaism "follow the rules and the Torah law", and our stony adherence to the "traditions" will be the witness to our condemnation at the awesome Judgement Seat of Christ.

We have GOT TO GO OUT AND GET 'EM. And we need to use whatever language our contemporary society uses to bring the salvific message of Christ to those who are still in darkness.

The Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the local "ministries" all recognize that you speak to people in their own words and in the context of their lives. If we "Eastern Christians" are so caught up in linguistic trivia and canonical complexities (black veil or white veil on the klobuk), then we are essentially abdicating our responsibilities towards the non-churched folks and allow them to become victims of the "Yee-Haw!" ministries that take them in and steal their money in the name of salvation. Nice. But not me. I truly believe that God loves all His people, and I'm not going to let linguistic niceties get in the way of my 'witnessing' to anybody I encounter.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Depends. Who is meant by "whoever". Reptiles? elephants?
I apologize if I sound like a cynic. But I do not believe that the fringe people are going to have major issues with the word "men" in the Creed--or Jesus Christ as the "Lover of Mankind". And if one or two of them have issues---it becomes a teaching moment!
No we don't. The "ordinary folks in the mall" will love and appreciate the traditional Liturgical language if given a chance. Liturgies are not translated into slang. The world adapts to the Liturgy--the Liturgy does not adapt to the world. Another teaching moment.
I think you might be surprised at how many can be brought to the Lord and catechized properly using the "old-fashioned" language.

Good point! The unchurched will be attracted by our loving Christian example---not the adaptation of Liturgical language to political agendas and radical feminism.

Amen.
Anything will become static without proper catechism.
I'm guessing that you speak of traditions of men.
Sacred Tradition is not pharisaism. It is a beautiful, loving, and glorious part of our faith.

Sadly, if we continue to surrender to the relativism, modernism, and political agendas of the world---we too may find ourselves moving closer to the "Yee-Haw ministries".
Jesus Christ always was, and always will be, "The Lover of Mankind".

Peace and blessings to you,
Mickey

IMHO the initial approach to the issue is to accurately and precisely translate the words of Scripture -- nothing "cutesy" about it. That must be done first, before going on to possible aspects of interpretation, especially if the interpretation is really a reading into the text what is not there objectively. My concern is with approaches that in effect jump to a The Living Bible type paraphrase; and my disappointment is with those who present themselves as experts but are unwilling or unable to then answer even basic questions about the details and consequences of their methodology and resulting translation. Specifically regarding the 'stuff about "Blessed is the man"', there is another thread where I have asked some specific questions link; the questions are asked about a quoted example, but are directed to anyone who cares to respond and join me and, hopefully, others concerned about details.

Dn. Anthony