www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology horizontal gender inclusive language in the Liturgy

Horizontal inclusive language represents replacing mankind with humankind or brethren with brothers and sisters, etc, as opposed to vertical inclusive language which changes Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, or Parent, Child, Force, and any other way of avoiding refering to the Father as Father, or the Son as Son and often going out of ones way to identify the Holy Spirit as female.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The proposed revision to the Divine Liturgy (for the Ruthenians) includes some translations that go way beyond �horizontal inclusive language� and embrace what can only be called �vertical inclusive language�.

In addition to being inaccurate, replacing �for he is gracious and loves mankind� with �for Christ is good and loves us all� is an example of �vertical inclusive language�. Replacing �he� with the specific name �Christ� might have been done with the best of intentions, but it can be seen as a denial of Christ�s maleness, as if it were part of the whole liberal �Jesus is our sister as well as our brother� attitude. Also, replacing �mankind� with �all of us� can be seen as exclusionary (He saves only those gathered here but not necessarily all men). The replacement of �gracious� with �good� appears to be a legitimate change for accuracy.

The Roman Catholic Church is racked with hosts of problems because of the introduction of inclusive language, which in itself is nothing more than catering to the secular feminist agenda. Why our bishops and liturgical commission would introduce this fight into our Church is a mystery. Even a cursory read of the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam [vatican.va] show that the proposed revisions take our Church in the wrong direction. One can argue that the letter of LA does not apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches but one cannot argue that the principles it provides do not apply to all Catholics.

Admin,

While I dislike that translation myself, I think ones must look at the entire translation to determine if it does "embrace what can only be called �vertical inclusive language� or 'can be seen as a denial of Christ�s maleness, as if it were part of the whole liberal �Jesus is our sister as well as our brother� attitude."

Nowhere in the translation is Jesus' maleness denied. The pronoun He is used numerous times in reference to Christ and most notably the masculine pronoun He replaces the neutral pronoun Who where ever it occurs in the translation in reference to any member of the Trinity.

I think therefore your accusation of vertical inclusiveness unfounded.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I never suggested that there was an overall intent to deny Christ�s maleness. In fact I specifically noted that the change was done with the best of intentions. I only suggested that inaccurate translations can cause confusion. If the translators were afraid that �he� might be thought to be referring to one of the saints that might be mentioned in this dismissal prayer, they could simply have capitalized it (�He�). There seems to be no justification for not being accurate in this instance. What is so horrible about �he� (or �He�) that it was decided to be unacceptable?

I disagree. But you might indeed be correct. We will have to wait for Rome to rule on whatever appeals come from the clergy and the people should this revision to the Liturgy be promulgated. I, as a faithful Byzantine Catholic layman, am praying earnestly that the Lord lead our bishops to produce a new Liturgicon that makes only minor edits to the text for accuracy (and not political correctness), as well being faithful to the rubrics of the Ruthenian recension (rather than a small group�s personal tastes).

Fr. Deacon,

What are the reasons for making the translations politically correct even if they are merely horizontal? Certainly the Creed ought not to be tampered with. Cardinal Newman, in the same sermon referenced in my original post, suggests that there are serious problems with not delivering the Mysteries as they have been received:

"The teacher of Christianity, instead of delivering the Mysteries, and (as far as may be) unfolding them is taught to scrutinize them, with a view of separating the inward holy sense from the form of words, in which the Spirit has indissolubly lodged them...Lastly, he reconstructs the language of theology to suit his (so called) improved views of Scripture doctrine."

God help the Ruthenians! I hope this whole thing fails, for the good of your Church.

Even the Creed in the Novus Ordo Mass of the Latin Church includes "for us men and for our salvation."

Logos Teen

Well there is some progress since the last go round with the administrator accepting that "good" is the accurate word. But how is "He" more "accurate" than "Christ"? Which of these two words is in the quoted phrase in the Greek and Slavonic?

No it cannot reasonably be seen this way, inasmuch as a masculine pronoun is used for Him in the exclamation.

Let us imagine that the use of horizontal or vertical inclusive language expands someone's understanding of God to the point of imaging God as "neither male nor female" and as Mystery. And let us imagine that this helps to create a path to monasticism and the convents, or at least a deeper spirituality. And let us imagine that some people--and particularly people who have to deal with forms of oppression--start learning of Christ as Friend or Companion, as having a human and immediate nature. Would it not be worth it?

I recently was in a group of people who were discussing how we image God. The women and the young people, hopeful and compassionate, all said that God is "someone" who is concerned with them as individuals. Us older working class guys found it difficult to make that leap. We could have used inclusive language as kids to help get us to the point reached by the women and youth. Its healthier, isn't it?

When people talk about "secular feminist agendas" and "political correctness" they're usually using code words to mask privilege. Discussion stops when people do this, doesn't it? And human privileges and power relationships seem to go very much against the faith, don't they?

Or are there still people who feel that God made them white and male so that they could exercise power over the rest of us?

Faithfully,

bob

Dear Snydersquare,

I am sure that you did not have the intent to prosletyze, but the above remark came across that way. That would be an absolute act against good conduct and decorum on this particular forum. Thank you.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

bob:

You posted:

"Let us imagine that the use of horizontal or vertical inclusive language expands someone's understanding of God to the point of imaging God as "neither male nor female" and as Mystery."
_________________________________________

Unfortunately for this idea, it flies in the face of Revelation. God specifically revealed Himself to us as Father through Our Lord Jesus Christ. To move back to "Mystery," we approach the far-removed ideas found in other religions, such as Islam. Our God has revealed Himself as Father specifically to reach into our world and relate to us as the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which fits each of us all too well.
__________________________________________

You followed with:

"And let us imagine that this helps to create a path to monasticism and the convents, or at least a deeper spirituality."
__________________________________________

Anything can create a "deeper spirituality" and that includes the New Age movement which this sounds all too much like. You have to remember that feminism, as it comes to us in the culture, is at root a radical hatred of God the Father and a hatred that deep and perverse comes certainly from the spriitual world, but it does not come from the path that Our Lord would have us travel nor the one traveled by the saints in the Church.

There are several books written about the language wars when it comes to translation, but, unfortunately, some of them are now out fo print because this issue is not new.

Fortunately for those of us who are Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II in "Authentic Liturgy" seems to point to the idea that only standard, non-feminist English can convey the truths of the Faith.

It seems from some of the posts on this and other threads that these wars have just now come to the BCA. In the Latin Church it has gone much farther with many groups refusing even to use the feminized translations that we currently have. One Bible study group that I left insisted on using a "Psalm" book that is a completely rewritten production. They said it was because authroized translations didn't "go far enough" in being inclusive. The point being that if one did not know the Psalms one would not recognize this volume as even being Christian.

BTW, those of us who have had our language training and degree work prior to the feminist attack on language and culture refuse to use the word "inclusive" to describe what this phenomenon is. The English language has been inclusive from its earliest forms and doesn't suddenly need political correction from radical feminists.

In Christ,

BOB

HOORAY

A man after my own heart You know this is so very very true

Dear Alice - I enjoyed (I usually do) your comment on the announcement that the OCA does not use "inclusive" language and that THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WELCOMES YOU! That is a bit shrill, to put it mildly, and your criticism is well taken.

But it moves me to invent a new catch phrase of my very own (which anyone is welcome to use at will): Proselytism by Pronouns!

Incognitus

Bob: You may find Fr. Taft's comments in the article linked above interesting. In effect, he considers those who object to horizontally inclusive language as having the political agenda.

I see that perspective as a little strong, but still have the sense that there is more at work in these discussions than just ideas on good translations. We should IMO focus on the suitability of the translation on its own merits: is it literate English; does it properly capture the meaning, nuances, and theology of the original text. Plenty of room for discussion on these points. We should avoid, IMO, the politics of the evolution in English usage - as detailed in Im's comments from the current vs thrity-some year old editions of the OED. Arguments that introduce the politics sometimes sound like this: since that evolution is part of the feminist agenda, and since that agenda includes a number of things that we absolutely oppose, then we must oppose this evolution of language also. (With the likely success of King Canute in opposing the tides.) Framing the issue in such terms sounds like a reactionary response to feminism, and doesn't really help advance the the goal of having the most suitable translation.

Excellent! I wonder if there are sheep stealing forays between "Thee" and "You" jurisdictions?

How sad that the "Ruthenian" Byzantine Catholic hierarchs in the USA decide to rework the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on their own.

Instead of striving toward unity among the Eastern Christian - Ukrainian, Melkite, Russian, Rusyn, etc. Catholic and Orthodox - they draw us further apart. We all celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

It is outrageous for one small branch of the Eastern Church to behave in such a self-important manner. Brotherly trust and ecumenism are being set back by their actions. How very unfortunate!