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

We certainly don't need English lessons taking place at church, however it's a classic example of society having a grip on religion, and not religion having a grip on society.


I feel that's partly to blame for the ills of society. We've allowed it to be turned around -- it's of our own doing. How far I'm willing to let this play out in my own life is what I'm trying to determine. My gut tells me to run -- and I believe that's God talking to me. Don't you???

There is actually quite a bit of precedent on this. We can see from example that one of the first things missionaries did was to teach the people to understand Greek or Latin so that they could understand the Gospel. Slavs have as their patron saints Saints Cyril & Methodius. Saint Cyril invented the Cyrillic alphabet and taught the Slavs how to read and write so that they might understand the Gospel. They did not �dumb down� the Gospel to make it relevant to �where the people were at�. They even added many new terms to the Slavonic language and taught the people the precise meaning of those terms. They shaped the culture rather then allowing the culture to shape the Gospel. In the West we see the more formal examples of the work by the Pauline Fathers and the Jesuit Fathers, both religious orders with a heavy emphasis on teaching. Among Protestants we can see the example of how the King James Bible radically influenced the English language. We can see in our own communities the example of Catholic schools, whose primary reason for existence is to teach the faith, with the teaching of the basics (Reading, Writing, etc.) as the foundation of raising up students to be able to understand the Gospel. And we can see the need for the Church to step in and correct some in academia who have attempted to influence the English language with the politics of secular feminism.

I think the issue here is that some of our well intentioned posters are confusing the jobs of the translator with the job of the teacher or homilist. The Church calls the translator to translate exactingly � as literal as is possible and as elegant as possible. It is then the job of the teacher or homilist to educate the faithful to raise them up to understand the Word. It is never the job of the Church or any member in it to adapt the Gospel to where the people are at. If it means teaching the faithful � or those who do not yet believe � the essentials of the English language then that is the correct thing to do.

I�ve posted this before but will do so as it is very relevant to this discussion:

A good teacher leads his student from �where he is at� to understand the meaning of the Gospel in its fullest sense. When we �dumb down� the Gospel by using a style of language that is rooted in secular politics we do a grave injustice to both the Gospel and the individual we are called to enlighten.

Very well said!

And here is the key statement in the quote from LA


Dropping a word from the Creed is certainly detrimental to the doctrinal mission of the Church. One wonders whether the Pope himself would have the authority to do such a thing.

Actually, no, the Holy Father is subordinated to the Council of Bishops on this. It is an 'ecumenical council' that is the top element of the Church. It can even depose a Pope for malfeasance or other dereliction (like mental illness).

My consistent concern is that we do need to evangelize. We need to be "in the world" as witnesses to the truth of the gospel of Christ. In its most basic form, it means loving God and loving one's neighbor and allowing the unchurched to see this. "Behold, these Christians, see how they love one another!)

If someone is in need, there should be one or more Christians there to attend to the needs of the afflicted. This has been the hallmark of most of our Saints. The sick, the suffering (for whatever reason), the disenfranchised, the addicted, the palsied or paralyzed. The Saints have seen the need (usually women!) and have just gone ahead and done what is needed without developing some theological structure to justify it.

Speaking as a linguist (I love language!!), the language must serve the 'loving God' and 'loving one's neighbor' mandates of Christ. While the traditional language forms may serve many people as a comfortable and enabling call to service, there are many others for whom it does not work. If folks are 'outside' the pale of the faith and are unchurched (and I'm scandalized in meeting very many Americans who have no clue about Christianity!!), then we have to go in their doors to bring them out ours.

For example, there was very little focus on God's creation and our human stewardship of our earth, but in the last 20+ years, both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Popes of Rome have made it clear that we can't just "use up" the earth without clearly taking responsiblity for what the Creator has done for us - and for our progeny. It's a conceptual "newbie" - and the liturgy should reflect our newfound awareness of our stewardship.

Traditional Eastern communities bless flowers and herbs, we bless the waters, we bless the animals (Thank you Brother Francis!!) and we need to make sure that we both bless and care for all of God's creation.

If we just use our 'old' liturgies without acknowledging our Holy Spirit understanding of our human responsibility of stewardship, then we are depriving our people of a Truth that is being given to us now.

As we now understand what I believe to be the Holy Spirit's inspiration of how all human folks are to serve God in our contemporary societies, we need to move into a mindset and 'soul-set' of total inclusivity of not only human men and women, but also of all of the creation that surrounds us.

Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest and theologian, presents a theology of "Alpha and Omega". The framework envisions an image that ALL of creation began from God's creational act, and that all that God created is moving towards a unification with the Creator at an Omega point in which all of creation is fulfilled.

To be honest, it allows us to tell a child that their deceased dog or cat or bird is part of God's creation and that we all will be brought together again at the Omega point of fulfilment of creation. And that friends of ours who have died in a suspicious state, will also be fulfilled (in whatever way) at the end point. If God is really "GOD" and the Creator of everything that exists, then salvation must include ALL of the Lord's creation. Christ died to redeem human creatures because we have free will we can choose to sin; but sinless creatures like the animals have no need of redemption from sin; they are 'just' part of creation. And there doesn't appear to be a reasonable justification for excluding them from the Omega point that God has prepared for all of His creation.

So, "Let everything that has breath bless the Lord!"

Would it be wrong to include a litany petition or a prayer for those living creatures - like cats and dogs and birds and bunnies and whatever to show that we Christians of the 21st century have finally developed a sense of the worth of other, non-human creatures? They are, after all, the product of the Lord's hand, and they are kept in existence by God's Will.

So, it seems logical that we Christians must clearly make sure that ALL of Creation, including women, are made part of the salvific action of God's creation and Christ's redemption. Make sure that all of God's creation is included in our prayers and our loving concerns.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Again, I know of very few people outside of the radical feminist movement, who cannot understand nor accept the use of the words, "man", "men", and "mankind" in the Divine Liturgy.
I am seeing a strange phenomenon? You and Frs Petras and Mack seem to assume that women feel they are not a part of God's salvific action unless gender neutralized language is utilized. This is a perplexing theory to me. I have never heard such a thing outside of the radical feminist movement.

Very odd indeed.

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that�s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.

� On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America�s churches.

� This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.

There are many more examples of this on the internet to support the fact that men aren't coming to church. Two reasons that many blame for this decline....

1. An emasculated liturgy and
2. gender-free Bibles


So you see, based on the statistics gender neutral language won't grow our churches, but will probably cause more men to leave, thus impacting vocations.

I just want to know, who ignored this research and went ahead with this poor plan? Why does this person feel we'll be the exception to the rule?

Might I suggest that the reason many men don't come to church on Sundays is that the Mass, as it is celebrated in many Western/Roman parishes, doesn't "work" for them. The same is probably true for Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox.

As the humor on TV shows demonstrates, women actually 'think' more than men do, and women appear to be more comfortable in linking human realities and events to each other so that there is a coherent whole. Spiritual life is thoughtful and reflective and women do this better than men do. Men dig holes and construct things; men are fulfilled when they "do" things that they intend to make life better.

Women examine realities and get distressed when things are not in a coherent arrangement that is beneficial to all involved. It's the difference between the genders and the way that they operate.

Liturgy is supposed to be reflective - examining one's life and determining to do better. As the Latin confession puts it: "I firmly resolve with the the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life.."

To be honest, I believe that most guys don't think this way. Many/most guys want a clear mandate to do something (i.e., usher in church, mop up the social hall, move the stupid chairs, sell kielbasa etc., take out the trash, and run fund-raisers) and by doing that guys feel good about themselves and what they are doing. And they're hanging out with the other guys in the parish. And while 'ushering', they slip out the door and have a smoke and a short conversation, and then come back. Like the original job-description of the deacons, they take care of the physical needs of the community.

Women do similar things in the parish community, but for women, I believe that there is an additional element of how the whole scheme of activities fits together.

As for emasculated liturgy, most guys have no clue. And, they don't really care. The main question is: when do we light the Triotse and go down the aisle. Gender-free bibles? What?

If there is a fire, or a health emergency for someone in the parish, the men will be there as soon as they know that there is a need, and the guys will fall all over each other trying to help out. The men are the Martha's from the Gospel.

But if you ask a guy about his daughter, his wife or his mother or aunt being 100% part of the parish community, he would not hesitate a second about making sure that she is included as a bedrock member of the parish and its life. And there is no question about this in the Eastern church parishes. "This is the church that pierogi built". Who made and sold the pierogi? For Greeks, the festival provides the operating funds. Who does the work for the festival? Gee, I think it's the women in the kitchen.

My point is not to denigrate the 'traditional' language of the liturgy or the Scripture, but rather to remind the community that women represent more than 50% of the community, and we NEED to make sure that women are at least minimally acknowledged in the liturgy and in the structure of the Church as the group that sustains the viability of the parish community.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the faithful on this Board, without the presence and the work of the women of the Church, the Church would devolve into a small group of misogynistic men. And evangelization would come to a complete and utter halt. While the men do physical and diaconal service, it is the women of the Church who provide the warmth and human touch to the Gospel community. And we need to both include and extol the roles of women in our communities.

Blessings to all!

Dr John

To be honest, I believe that most guys don't think this way. Many/most guys want a clear mandate to do something (i.e., usher in church, mop up the social hall, move the stupid chairs, sell kielbasa etc., take out the trash, and run fund-raisers) and by doing that guys feel good about themselves and what they are doing. And they're hanging out with the other guys in the parish. And while 'ushering', they slip out the door and have a smoke and a short conversation, and then come back. Like the original job-description of the deacons, they take care of the physical needs of the community.

As for emasculated liturgy, most guys have no clue. And, they don't really care. The main question is: when do we light the Triotse and go down the aisle. Gender-free bibles? What?


That's why I removed myself from the pirohi brigade at my parish. One guy shows up faithfully every week to pinch, but he NEVER comes to church!

It's too much like an ethnic "club" with a "Church" attached, with the priority being the "club" part for a good number of the people. I'm there to try to be the best possible Orthodox Christian I can. I could care less about the food sales. Some of the parishioners are obsessed with it.

I realize the funding helps the parish, but come on! We're a church, not a take out restaurant!

I hear you. And I understand what you are saying. As I think about this, I recall the fact that most Orthodox parishes (obviously 'ethnic') were started by groups of families who wanted to establish a 'koinotis', Greek for "community". It was part prayer, part 'United Way', part social (dances, card games, looking for a mate, etc.) and partially a way to establish a setting for preserving something of the past that had been left behind.

There is no question that the "faith" was a critical element in this effort. But we would be naive to assume that the 'church/faith' element was the primary thing. It was, as the chemists say: a racemic mixture -- all elements were critical to the composition.

To be honest, there are many who aren't 'attracted' to liturgical things. They are great at mopping the social hall floors and cleaning the bathrooms; that's what they do best and that is what makes them happy. And that is what makes them feel like they are a contributing member of the community. It's like the folks who are tone-deaf and who try to join the choir, 'to help out'. It's not going to work - and just dismissing them without helping them find their niche in the community is just plain un-Christian.

But if they get directed to ushering, or candle-stand, or fellowship-coffee, then they are not only contributing to the community/koinotis, but they are appreciated for their 'diakonia'/service -- AND they themselves feel like they are a valuable part of the community - which they are!!

And this is where the priest comes in - he is responsible to make sure that all the members of the congregtion get to use their talents to build up the parish Body of Christ. It's no easy task. And some folks get really territorial, and make the priest's life a hell on earth! And, without psychologizing, some folks "ego's" don't admit of much, and their own sense of self-worth is so fragile that disenfranchising them from their 'safe' areas is a real danger to their personalities and their souls. As a community, we need to really work to make sure that they find a safe and comfortable haven in their parish community. For the parish member who makes 'deadly' cookies for the coffee-hour (hopefully, no one has yet died), we need to open up other venues of service that will fulfil them and not lead to food-poisoning or salmonella!

But, if the 'ethnic stuff' is the way that some folks can express their need to contribute, then it should be fine. But we all need to make sure that we expand their boundaries to include everything that the community has to offer.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Really? Have you taken a poll?
That is quite the generalization.
Amazing! You continue to assume that words such as "man", "men", and "mankind" are exclusive and denigrating toward women. You say that men have not a clue about gender neutralization--but I suppose that women are up in arms if the Liturgy is NOT gender-neutralized. And I ask you: Outside of the radical feminist movement, show me the throngs of Eastern Catholic women who were protesting the language of the Liturgy. Show me the wives , daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, and cousins who were demanding the promulgation of gender neutral language.

Outside of your particular opinion (bias) doctor, show us the evidence that demanded the neutralization of The Divine Liturgy.

You cannot, because it is not there. It is only in the minds of a few reformers who pushed a political agenda down the throats of the faithful.

I am certain that the RDL will die a slow and painful death.

Up in arms is not the point. I don't know very many "radical feminist movement" people. (To be honest, as I see it, that 1960s-1970s phenomenon has pretty much died out.)

But in our current American society, many younger folks just see "people" and don't get their bloomers in a twist over someone (male or female) doing something that hasn't been done in the past. Younger American/Canadian women don't 'demand', they just "do". And, to be honest, the use of language is not something that women will get all exorcised about - they just do what they are called to do.

Emending the language is not some huge cataclysm that will destroy the church and the faith. It is only a mirror of what is actually happening in the communities.

It is for the total community to come to some consensus about how we linguistically 'advertise' the faith so that no one gets the impression that we are putting people into boxes. Agreed, that the 'imposition' from the anointed guardians is not a good way to go. As a linguist, I know that NO ONE can mandate language use in general society, but in 'closed' hierarchical societies, this can still be a factor.

My perspective is this: let's make sure that whatever language we choose to use in liturgical activities is not going to alienate anyone who walks through the doors. It's not a big deal. Salvation doesn't depend on words - it depends on the commitment to the Gospel and its daily living practices.

If Sister Stephanie's numbers are correct (and I'm sure that they are- they make great sense!), then why is this forum overwhelmed by men?

Where are the women whose voices should be heard? Is it perhaps that they are engaged in other more critical activities that enhance the Church?

Do they perhaps think that the "women have their place" mentality that some propound makes their participation futile? I.e., why waste time and effort talking about how ALL God's children can be part of the mosaic of the Church when the petrificationists won't even consider any changes?

There is no question that men and women have different perspectives, including the way that families and communities function. After all these years, I have come to learn that the differences are important, and than women should listen to men, but also that men must listen to women. Even if they make things uncomfortable and - to be clear - kick men's butts on certain issues. To do less is to abnegate the realities of God's creating us differently.

Using language that focuses on "people" as instruments of God's word and plan is a way to ensure that we bring in EVERYBODY. And that anyone who comes to our door is given a handshake and a sincere welcome. (And some coffee and sweets!) And not be made to feel that their gender/age/size/native-language/etc. is going to pigeon-hole them into a role within the community.

As followers of the Christ's teaching of loving every human being - no matter what, we have to be radical lovers of everybody. And we absolutely have to be prepared to do WHATEVER is necessary to bring them in.

At the great and glorious Judgement Seat, we ALL have to be ready to say to the Lord: "Lord and Master, I reached out to EVERYONE I met and I did everything I knew to make sure that each would be open to hearing Your teaching." To do less is to put one's soul in jeopardy despite all the Liturgies, fasting, studies, etc.

Lord, be merciful to us all!

Dr John

I quite agree with you in theory and in practice. Everyone needs to feel welcome and be welcomed in the assembly. However, I don't think that we need to do that by unusual and awkward phraseology and speech in the very reason why we gather each Sunday. Liturgical launguage? Yup, we're creating a "new English" that's used just only in churches. The Congregationalists in my area have the patent on it, and the Catholics are catching up fast. For now, I'm happy to be speaking the King's English each Sunday at my Anglo-Catholic church.

John K (one of 'us all')

You are mistaken.
Amen. And they also understand that the word "mankind" is the best English translation for "us all". And they do not get their "bloomers in a twist" when such traditional terms are used.
Amen. Hence there was no reason to gender neutralize the Liturgy.
When the language of the Sacred Divine Liturgy is amended to satisfy the political agenda of a small minority, it is indicative of a larger problem.
Liturgical change should be organic over time. The only box that has been utilized, is the box that the Ruthenian Catholics were jammed into when the RDL was forced down their throats.
It seems like many more were alienated by gender neutralized language than were appeased. So what do you do now?
It is a very big deal.
So then if the Liturgy were revised again using street slang--all would be well with you? We are not discussing salvation. We are discussing the forced application of gender neutralized language.

What are you insinuating?
Are you listening? I could drum up quite a few for you.

That is an insulting statement to men and women. Alas, your true thoughts have been exposed.
So now you insinuate that those who are opposed to gender neutral language, (male and female), are "petrificationists" who are an impediment to Church growth. Oh my, why must you put forth insults?
Indeed!
This is not a competition. Sheesh!

Yes! And EVERYBODY except a minority of politically motivated radicals understood "mankind" to represent EVERYBODY!!!
Were people being shunned and turned away at the door before the RDL???
Were people being alienated and pigeon-holed before the RDL. I was not aware of this!
It is absolutely amazing to me that you believe that the former translation of the Divine Liturgy was divisive and non-inclusive.
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind!

I think that thou has missed my main point: I'm not talking about the new RDL which has caused serious upset in the community. I'm talking about the use of language in general and how that must influence our language in the Church.

Your point about: "former translation of the Divine Liturgy was divisive and non-inclusive" highlights your main focus. The English language of the liturgy was changed, and this does not sit well with you and apparently most of the worshipping faithful. I actually agree with you. Some of the renderings are decent, some are poor, and some are just beyond reason. My theological perspective (from 'ecclesiology') is that the worshipping people should have some input into the liturgies - the liturgy is after all the "people's public prayer". In the olden days, when few were educated beyond the priest and the schoolteacher, making decisions by the 'appointed' might have made sense. Today, in our pews, there are people with waaaaay more education and competences than a select group of clergy. While theolgical studies are an absolute sine-qua-non for involvement, there are many who have competencies in language, culture, media, advertising, and social sciences who should have at least a "look-at" role with some input. I honestly think that this is one of the problems that is leading to discontent. Not the language/translations per-se, but rather the imposition.

It seems to me that the response to the changes is more a "hell no, we won't go" reaction that leads to a rejection of elements that we ought to be striving for. If I were to ask both you and the overall community for ways to make us more 'evangelical' (in the good sense!) and to make sure that we did not alienate any person who took a look at us, I'm sure that we could sit down and hammer out things that would give us the outreach tools that we could use to bring in the non-church people.

But I believe that the 'imposition' of things over which we have absolutely NO control is causing people to rebel. The old "pray, pay and obey" modality is no longer viable in the Americas. Most of us would like to have at least a semblance of involvement in how we worship (not to mention the $$$ that was expensed in mandating the revisions. $20 a book? YIKES!)

When Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council talked about 'aggiornamento", (=bringing the church to the current day"), they were recognizing that we needed to address things like electronic communications, modern medicine and public health, the environment, etc. And this included getting out of the segregationist mind-set that raised or lowered classes of people based upon less than relevant characteristics. [As a seminarian, I recall dealing with one or two older priests who subscribed to the notion that blacks didn't have souls and that evangelizing to them was a waste of time. Sad, but true. Similar ideas about women also existed: "baby machines" - a true quote.] The Holy Father and the Council ostensibly wanted the Church to recognize the fallacy of these ideas and to root them out of church practice and discipline. Unfortunately, these "root" ideas got abused and engendered themselves as practices that were just stupid.

We're more than 50 years out from Vatican II (which also told us Easterns to rediscover and re-institute our legitimate traditions) and we're still circling the airport. But, we have to keep on trying.

Blessings to All!

Dr John