www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Man, Mankind, etc. - regarding so called 'inclusive language'

With all of the recent posts and writings on so called "inclusive language', it brought some thoughts and questions to my mind.

This topic is usually referred to here as "inclusive language'. But the term "inclusive language' itself is misleading because calling it that actually concedes the argument. Calling it "neutered' and "feminized' casts it in an objective context so that people can see it for what it is, a carefully designed trick to make truth appear false.

From its earliest days, English has used the word "man' to refer to any or the entire human race and also to refer to a masculine person. Of course all of us know this type of word by name "homonym'.

Examples of homonyms:

Everyone knows "run'
"run' as what a clock does
"run' as what a river does
"run' as what a horse does
"run' as what a lease does
"run' as what a child's nose does
"run' as what a stocking does

Everyone knows "fast'
"fast' as what we do during Holy Week for example
"fast' as a rate of speed
"fast' as tending toward immoral behavior
"fast' as colors that stay true

Most people can even easily handle compound homonymic expressions such as:
"He runs with a fast crowd'

Yet there are those out there who say it could be confusing to distinguish man from man. Yet, this is so inconsistent with their understandings of other homonyms that it baffles me.

So here is a question I have: Am I to believe that those in the pews who can distinguish many meanings between words like "run' and "fast' are incapable of differentiating between "man' and "man' and other words deemed to be gender offensive?


Another question is: Is "inclusive' language really inclusive?

For example:

"All men are brothers' includes all of humanity.
"All men and women are brothers and sisters' actually EXCLUDES children, who are boys and girls. So "…all of our brothers and sisters in Christ' is not inclusive but exclusive. And "…all of our brothers in Christ' is actually inclusive because of the homonym "brothers' in this example.

I firmly and humbly believe that we as Byzantine Catholic have to hand down a tradition to our children and to their descendants that depends for precision on words whose exact meaning has been honed over the passing centuries. I pray that we will fulfill this and many other obligations to future generations.

mc

MC: I think you have a fine intelligent bishop in Parma, who just wrote a piece in Horizons that views the subject rather differently. If you wish to exclude him from any suggestion of being involved in a "carefully designed trick to make truth appear false", then please delimit your general statement quoted above. If you actually want to include him, be direct about it, so that people can have a clear sense about just how valid your concerns are.

I think this statement is just incorrect.

Nope. "Brothers and sisters in Christ" clearly includes both "men and women" and "boys and girls".

We really haven't been honing the English liturgy for centuries. More like 50 years of "honing" notwitsatnding some earlier versions.

I think that we are in step with all Eastern churches in America - even the Ukrainians - about celebrating the liturgy in the vernacular. I think that honing will go on endlessly so that immutable truth can be expressed in a constantly changing language. The honing will only stop if we go back to using a "dead" language.

IIRC, there have been at lewast twelve standard English liturgies of St. John Chrysostom within Orthodoxy over the past century. I think honing continues. Thus if you search the current Greek Orthodox English liturgy you will not find constructions using "man" and "mankind" in the manner you seem to think some precisely honed element of the liturgy. Maybe it's time to re-examine your pre-suppositions.

djs,

The liberal World Council of Churches applauds your post.

But I beg to differ from it.

Quote

Quote

From its earliest days, English has used the word manto refer to any or the entire human race and also to refer to a masculine person

Quote

I think this statement is just incorrect.

You would think wrong. Here are the facts. I encourage you to research this.

From its earliest days, English used the word man to designate any or all of the human race and wer to describe a masculine person, as in the Latin vir and the English virile. The transition from Old English to Middle English replaced wer with the homonym man. The Old English words for a feminine person, wyf and wyfman, were retained; wyfman became woman. Over the next 800 years every English speaker easily distinguished the two homonyms, man (all humans) and man (masculine person), as all homonyms are distinguished, by context.

Quote

All men and women are brothers and sisters actually EXCLUDES children, who are boys and girls. So all of our brothers and sisters in Christ is not inclusive but exclusive.

Quote

Nope. "Brothers and sisters in Christ" clearly includes both "men and women" and "boys and girls".

I would reply to this but it's already in my last post. Please re-read the post without a liberal slant.

Quote

I firmly and humbly believe that we as Byzantine Catholic have to hand down a tradition to our children and to their descendants that depends for precision on words whose exact meaning has been honed over the passing centuries.

Quote

We really haven't been honing the English liturgy for centuries. More like 50 years of "honing" notwitsatnding some earlier versions.

Nice try to get me off of the subject. Clearly when I wrote 'for centuries' I was referring to the 'English language' and not to 'English language used just in the liturgy.' Therefore your confusion regarding centuries and 50 years. I didn't realize I needed to footnote so much for you.


I'm still curious:

Am I to believe that those in the pews who can distinguish many meanings between words like "run' and "fast' are incapable of differentiating between "man' and "man' and other words deemed to be gender offensive?


mc

djs,

The liberal World Council of Churches applauds your post.

But I beg to differ from it.

Quote

Quote

From its earliest days, English has used the word manto refer to any or the entire human race and also to refer to a masculine person

Quote

I think this statement is just incorrect.

You would think wrong. Here are the facts. I encourage you to research this.

From its earliest days, English used the word man to designate any or all of the human race and wer to describe a masculine person, as in the Latin vir and the English virile. The transition from Old English to Middle English replaced wer with the homonym man. The Old English words for a feminine person, wyf and wyfman, were retained; wyfman became woman. Over the next 800 years every English speaker easily distinguished the two homonyms, man (all humans) and man (masculine person), as all homonyms are distinguished, by context.

Quote

All men and women are brothers and sisters actually EXCLUDES children, who are boys and girls. So all of our brothers and sisters in Christ is not inclusive but exclusive.

Quote

Nope. "Brothers and sisters in Christ" clearly includes both "men and women" and "boys and girls".

I would reply to this but it's already in my last post. Please re-read the post without a liberal slant.

Quote

I firmly and humbly believe that we as Byzantine Catholic have to hand down a tradition to our children and to their descendants that depends for precision on words whose exact meaning has been honed over the passing centuries.

Quote

We really haven't been honing the English liturgy for centuries. More like 50 years of "honing" notwitsatnding some earlier versions.

Nice try to get me off of the subject. Clearly when I wrote 'for centuries' I was referring to the 'English language' and not to 'English language used just in the liturgy.' Therefore your confusion regarding centuries and 50 years. I didn't realize I needed to footnote so much for you.


I'm still curious:

Am I to believe that those in the pews who can distinguish many meanings between words like "run' and "fast' are incapable of differentiating between "man' and "man' and other words deemed to be gender offensive?


mc

MC:

First let me encourage you to cite articles [secondexodus.com] articles whose content you use so liberally.

The more extended quote on "man", "wer", and "wyf" is exactly what I had in mind, and shows that your original sentence is just incorrect: there were different words - "man"= genus and "wer"= a male person - in the earliest days. Simiarly you go awry on your extension of Martin Barrack's copyrighted material with your "brothers and sisters in Christ". What he says is correct, but what you say is not.

You may not want to limit the discussion of honing to English translations, but that is what is under discussion here. I have heard no call by anyone for any reason at all to go back and revise the Old Slavonic liturgy. The issue is how to best render it in vernacular English.

And by the way, I hope that you grasp that the egregious examples given by Barrack have nothing at all to do with our restored liturgy. My questions stands: are you including Bishop John among those trying to "make truth appear false"?

mc:

I will pose you a few questions. If a woman, who has never been raised in any faith and has been educated in the most "liberal" university of our country, should be invited to a Divine Liturgy, would she not find some of the language in the Liturgy offensive? If so-called "exclusive language" becomes a stumbling block to evangelism, should not "sex neutral" language be employed?

BTW, I do find it rather telling that it is us men who are most vociferous vis-a-vis the inclusive language issue.

Dear Deacon John,

I am an educated woman, who works in a liberal field, and who happens to find inclusive language silly. I do realize that the church is run by men, some of which do not want to hear/believe a woman's view on the church and its practices. That does not keep me from church. If women in the Eastern church are to accept their role in the pew instead of altar serving or being a eucharistic minister, I think they can handle a few words like man or man-kind.

And, I'm with MC, if she's at all educated she'll know that 'man' is synonomous with all of huMANkind.

I truly think you are not giving woMEN enough credit.

IMHEO,
Cathy

Cathy, suppose you are at a meeting and a speaker addressess the group: "gentlemen", rather than "ladies and gentlemen". While I have no doubt that people could figure out from context whether the address was inclusive or exclusive, it would nevertheless be peculiar, I think, and outside of standard formal English, to make such an address. Agree?

Cathy,

Are you then inferring it is the undeducated women (or men) who have advocated for sex-neutral or inclusive language?

I'd just like to go on record as agreeing with MC. It is my insignificant opinion that inclusive language is a silly surrender of something sacred to those who have no right to make such demands. Its a chase after fads that doesn't befit a faith that is supposed to be once for all delivered and unchanging. For as many people as it pleases it is revolting to twice as many. And the crowd it seeks to satisfy wants much more than just changes in language.

I have no time for debate and I've said my peace. Thank you.

I suppose there has to be some acknowlegement that English lacks those generic terms that other languages have for men and women.

I suppose what is worrying some is that the history of translations involves some disagrement as to the quality of the English and how faithful the translations are to the original language and meaning.

The Latins have this with their liturgy. An example is a response "The Lord be with you" response in the missal has "and also with you". While the Latin text response is "and with your spirit". Now that is a big difference. I dont want to go there, that was just an example of the problems of translating.

The fact of the matter is and I quote "translators are traitors".

ICXC
NIKA

Slava Isusu Christu!

The need for inclusive language has no root in Catholic evangelization. The questions that formulated the need for inclusive language were birthed out of the feminist and womanist theological paradigms. If it wasn't for the Women's Movement in general and feminist theologians like Elizabeth Fiorenza and Rosemary Ruether in particular--this subject would not even be referenced in academic circles and in modern discourse, linguistically or otherwise.

We are an Eastern Church that has historically had an identity crisis. Either we are taking pre-Conciliar forms of Latin Christianity, post-Conciliar forms, or various forms of Protestantizations--not to mention the affect modern culture and society have had on our Church. What we end up becoming, and what has been critiqued before on this forum and in other theological venues, is a hybridized ecclesial creation. A creature that fits in nowhere and with no one--whose whole genetic structure sets itself up for failure and marginalization.

It is already being established in the Latin Church, in the writings of the current Pope, a Church which is far ahead of us in the inclusive language department, that modern language needs to be have a sacred character--to have the influence of the Church and not the other way around. Language that carries an antithesis to the Church's thesis cannot ethically or integrally be managed into a synthesis--this statement is aimed at feminist constructions of American English demonstrated in so-called inclusive language.

The greatest problem in our Church is how to survive population moves, members leaving for Latin and other ecclesial communities, financial issues, and how to develop an effective missiological theoria and praxis that will increase its canonical membership and to wit: save and deify souls in Christ. Lay members cannot judge the secret or "behind the scenes" action too quickly with regard to the commission that has created the translation that is the subject of this topic; but, since we shall be praying what we believe--I do not believe in the feminist construction of reality--I will not be praying a liturgy that desires to create a synthesis with error--no matter how seemingly minute using the excuse that it is "only horizontal inclusivity." This places anyone in my situation in a dilemma; but can we support Truth admixed with error? Does anyone who knows the fulness that the Church has to offer, put themselves at risk?

Since Catholic liturgy, either Eastern or Western, is geared toward the transformation of the person in Christ--this tranformation cannot occur, or the setting for such activity will not be realized ideally, if false principles and usages of language are used in liturgical translations. Surely, the Spirit blows where He wills--but shall we tempt God?

Since our Church has, historically, seen trends come and go--this one will surely be relegated to the history books as another dis-located attempt by the Rusyn Church to re-create its image to appear as another creature--not truly Eastern or Western, nor solely liberal or American, but always coveting the fulness of one position. That is true of most minority groups in any society--the desire to conform is greater then the desire to be bold enough to conform society to its image.

Earlier, I talked about the genetic structure of our Church--that it is set up for failure. That is because our Church was founded on thesis that Rome had something that we did not have; and so we needed to form a new ecclesial structure to bring that comformity about--as if our native Catholic traditions and ecclesiastical structure as a Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church were not as valid before the Unias, or that we could not have in fact recognized the Patriarch of Rome on the diptychs rather than taking an oath of fidelity to Rome and the Council of Trent. In our structure we are weak, but the action of the Holy Spirit can remove error and weakness--this activity is done through our hierarchs. The strength of any Church is dependent on the leadership of its hierarchs, period. Truly, the key to effective transformation of our Church is in its hierarchs. If they desire to feed us the pablum of feminist and Protestant notions from the academy then they have decided to poison us--but if they decide to draw deep from the wells of our authentic Rusyn Catholic and Orthodox genetic structure--then we will be blessed of the Spirit. It will not take an Ezekiel to prophesy our doom if we do not restore the fulness of our Tradition and understanding of the Faith--not to mention restoring the mystical theology of our Eastern Church and supporting authentic monasticism. An action of the lay people cannot save our Church, nor of its priests, but only of the hierarchs--let us pray for them--but it will only be the will of God that determines our fate as a part of the Christ's Body.

In the Theotokos,


Robert

Are you being serious?

Why do you think I encouraged you to research it? Do you think that I thought you were going to wait until next week sometime and go the library. Of course you'll find it on the web. You and your liberal friends are unable to debate issues, so you attack the messenger instead of the message or you claim that these are 'my opinions' and not agreed by others out there. My little experiment proved it. You backpedaled real fast when you saw that there are serious writers out there disagreeing with you. And in your backpedaling you tried to agree with the writer while disagreeing with me. You want it both ways. And here I thought by getting you to see that sometimes you need to do some research and learn opposing views, then you would see the issue clearer rather than just attack the messenger. That doesn't mean you would agree with me, but maybe you'd be able to stay on the subject matter.

You proven to me that you want to talk about everything except the main topic and what's in the post. That's why you've ignored first question twice now.

Yet you have the audacity to pose a question to me and expect me to answer it. Is this how it works, I ask questions and you ignore them, you ask questions and demand I answer them.

Quote

The more extended quote on "man", "wer", and "wyf" is exactly what I had in mind....

If it's exactly what you had in mind then write it. You're pride won't let you admit you're wrong will it?

I'm going south with my family for some buiness and relative visiting. Maybe when I come back in two weeks you'll have answered my question:

So here is a question I have: Am I to believe that those in the pews who can distinguish many meanings between words like "run' and "fast' are incapable of differentiating between "man' and "man' and other words deemed to be gender offensive?

After you answer, then you can demand questions from me. You're used to getting your way always aren't you?

mc

Cathy, Sorry if you found that question intrusive. But I see it as a good starting point for understanding different people's perspectives. The term "inclusive language" includes many things. Some are outright heresy, some are just gross language, others are perfectly natural. For me, "ladies and gentlemen", or "brothers and sisters" fall in the latter category. Several posters on the forum, however, object to "brothers and sisters" instead of "brethren" to address the congregation before the epistle, and have presented a variety of interesting arguments to support their perspective. I was wondering if you agree with that perspective.