A Few Questions About Inclusive Language
Is this too provocative for a Monday? Well, here goes anyway…
Here are a few questions I have about the use of inclusive language for God, which seems to be a growing trend in the mainlines, and in some quarters of the Catholic Church.
1. Is there a mandate from the pews for inclusive language, or has it been forced on the “ignorant masses” by an “elite” minority (a type of Academic clericalism perhaps?)?
2. Do more people feel excluded by the use of inclusive language than feel included by it, because most people seem to prefer the traditional designations for God? (The link, based on a poll of American Catholics, suggests the answer is YES, at least for Catholics).
3. What real effect does wealthy, white, educated, Christians using inclusive language on a Sunday morning actually have on those women, poor, and minorities who are “oppressed” by the system that gave us “exclusive” language? Or is inclusive language about making people feel “good” on a Sunday morning?
4. Why is it so many people get worked up about this in the Academy (lowering grades for using “he,” spending hours excising masculine references from a hymn, etc) but people in the pews I know (from a variety of traditions) don’t seem to give the first hoot about inclusive language?
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
May 22, 2007 at 9:06 am
A very interesting question. Thanks for the link. It was a relief to find that I was not the only one unaware of the term ‘inclusive language’.:-) I’m quite aware of the phenomenon, though, being an English language teacher.
I’ve been thinking recently (in relation to aggressive calls for the Church to apologise for baptising indigenous people of South America etc) that too many people tend to lose any awareness of history, and expect everyone else to have no historical perspective whatsoever. Sometimes
it seems that it is only inside the Church, where people pray for their
ancestors and have a living tradition, that this historical approach is possible. Why should we feel offended by the use of the words ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ if we know that they have been used for centuries to refer to humanity as a whole?
As a teacher, I’m having difficulty in correcting student’s writing , e.g. I am uncertain about ‘Everybody was reading their(?!) books’… Is this supposed to be standard English today?
Regards,
Faraway (female :))
May 22, 2007 at 11:05 am
The site indicates that this same group indicates 39% of so called Catholics have no problem with abortion and a high percentage of others still look toward contraception and women as priests as being acceptable. These figures and results seem more inportant to me than “inclusive” language. The fact that many in the Church have tried to make words gender neutral just lends itself to the the lack of believe in all the Tenets of the Church.
May 22, 2007 at 11:14 am
Faraway,
I agree with your analysis. One reason I asked these questions is because I don’t think the use of inclusive language is always about “inclusion” (because most folks feel quite included with the traditional language), but rather often about politics.
May 22, 2007 at 11:17 am
Anonymous,
I agree the poll shows a lot of dissent, which is deeply troubling, and the other results of the poll merit a blog entry themselves, but this entry is about inclusive language.
However, even with the high dissent, you STILL see very little demand for inclusive language. In other words, despite the fact that a good chunk of those polled were more “progressive,” this still did not translate into increased demand for inclusive language.
May 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I personally prefer “inclusive” language. I am not militant about it and demanding anything from the pew. I merely make my own substitutions. It helps me pray. It is not about “feeling good”.
May 23, 2007 at 11:33 am
I would suggest you read Archbishop Charles J Chaput, OFM Archbishop of Denver’s speech titled Religious Tolerance and the Common Good. I clearly recoginize your choice of commenting on your blog on “inclusive” language from the site you use but maybe you should quit majoring in the “Minors”.
May 23, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Anonymous #2,
I do not think inclusive language is necessarily minor, as it relates to other issues. Yes there are more important issues out there, as the poll indicates. However, the way in which we address (and conceive of) God does matter, as it has an effect on theology and christology. Reducing the Triune God to titles (Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier) or altering our baptismal formula (as a few priests have even done) are problematic. I honestly think, when compared to other issues, inclusive language is rather minor, which is why the militant attitude of a minority who wish to force it on the Church troubles me.
My assessment is that the mainlines will see more inclusive language for God in their future, and Catholics less, and the Orthodox will continue what they have been doing for centuries, probably laughing at our Western desire to be theologically trendy.
May 23, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Thank you for your clarification. I am in complete agreement of your concerns.
May 24, 2007 at 3:54 am
Dear David,
Could you give a link to any site that might feature examples of ‘inclusive’ approach to God. I have only heard of, and never actually seen the changes in the modern translations of the Holy Scriptures or the baptismal formula. Do some versions actually avoid referring to God in the masculine?
I live in an Orthodox country and as a language teacher I am a kind of go-between in cultural terms.
I am trying to understand the western ways. Sadly, many mistakes that your culture has made or will make tend to be repeated in ours - if not by the Church, than by the society. I am afraid we won’t have a chance to laugh at your trendiness, having our own mess to deal with. And given the speed of globalisation, my generation is likely to witness the one big global mess…
May 24, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Here is a site with some inclusive language for God. This is more radical than you see in most churches, but is honestly similar to what many in the seminary I attended would like to see happening regularly.
http://apocryphile.org/ilp/
May 24, 2007 at 7:55 pm
For instance, here is a version of the Our Father from that site:
Our Creator who is in the heavens, and in the seas, and in the
land,
Hallowed be your names.
The kin-dom come, thy will be done,
as you sing the song that we dance to.
Give us this day our daily bread, and help us to see that all are
fed.
We seek shelter in your understanding love and seek every day to
be that same shelter for others.
Help us to see the pitfalls that we can fall into, and liberate
us from the evil that sometimes captures us.
All that we have, we seek to give back to you.
Amen
May 24, 2007 at 8:02 pm
The only people I have ever known who were in favor of “inclusive language” have also been for abortion, women priests, goddess worship under the guise of “Christ-Sophia” (and other neo-pagan New Agey crap). Frankly, let’s just call all this for what it is: the blasphemous, heretical tripe of unbelievers. Period.
May 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm
So far as inclusive imagery is drawn from scripture (ie Christ as Mother Hen) or Tradition (I think Julian and other such mystics), then it may have a place. It is when you start monkeying around with Trinitarian imagery that it gets very upsetting.
May 29, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I went to the basillica of St. Mary’s in Minneapolis, MN this past weekend. We said this:
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands,
for the praise and glory of God’s name,
for our good, and the good of all the church.
Is this tinkering allowed? It annoyed me to no end.
May 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Hi, Chad Toney…
NO, changing the words of the Liturgy (”tinkering around”) is actually EXPRESSLY forbidden, and when you hear it you should raise all holy hell about it ON THE SPOT!
Changing words, as I have often heard liberal or ill informed priests do in the name of PCness or “inclusive language”, often results in a change of doctrine (whether meant or not). Frankly, if I am at a Mass and the priest changes one word, I do not commume…frankly, I wouldn’t be sure if that Mass were valid or not.
May 29, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Chad,
I am not sure if replacing God for masculine pronouns there makes a Mass invalid, but it does bug me, mainly because it strikes me as political…I mean, how many parishioners really demanded that? My solution is to simply say it properly as loud as possible ;).
LP,
I agree with you. Part of my issue with inclusive language for God is that it is often politically motivated (as opposed to coming from a reverence for tradition/scripture), and results in 2000 year old titles, formulas, etc, being changed simply because a minority of post-1970s Westerners doesn’t feel comfortable saying them anymore. I have asked before, and haven’t really gotten answer, but how is our “correcting” Scripture, hymns, etc, any different than orthodox medieval monks/scribes “correcting” the biblical manuscripts as they copied them?
May 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm
David - I just looked at that apocryphile site you linked. I LOVED the confession! (Please note the sarcasm:
Loving God, you know our weakness,
and the extent of our failure to love you and one another,
and you see the sincerity of our efforts as well.
Look upon us who have been offended and lift up our hearts.
Look upon us who have given offense
and help us heal the hurt we have caused.
As we willingly, with your help, forgive one another,
We ask you to forgive us and fill us with your healing power and grace. Amen.
Paging Pelagius! Will Pelagius please report!
The problem that I have with liturgies like this has less to do with inclusive language and more to do with the baggage that accompanies it. Clearly what we see in some of the more extreme forms cease to be recognizably Christian.
Some of this can be seen in the way that inclusive liturgies can change the name of God from something personal to something impersonal, those losing the fact that God has entered into relationship with us both as individuals and communities. It is sad, really. God goes from being “God with us” to being “God-out-there-somewhere-who-committed some-acts-some-time-ago-that-may-or-may-not-be-meaningful-to-us-now-depending-on-our-social-location-and-experience-of-oppression.”
Of course, it doesn’t matter anyway, because if you read some of these liturgies it is clear that they are about US and not about HIM.
Lord Have Mercy!
May 30, 2007 at 10:41 pm
LP,
I agree with your assessment. Changing language is not simply about substituting words, but often a new (or old and heretical) theology emerges.
Plus, I will be honest, a lot of the stuff at that site is just plain flaky for my tastes. For example, the blessing from one of them:
Go forth and be the compassionate expression of the ultimate compassion you wish for.
or the gathering:
L: The doors of refuge are open.
P: Within these doors,we are sometimes the refugee, sometimes
the caretaker within.
L: The doors of refuge are open.
P: All who hunger to be here are welcome.
July 17, 2007 at 7:46 am
VERY SADLY, the Byzantine Catholic Church in America has just published (at no small expense, for no dang good reason) a new more inclusive translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
It was done unilaterally without reference to other Catholic Churches of Eastern rites or our sister Orthodox.
It is embarassing and sad all at the same time.
Interestingly (and thankfully) Mary has not become the “Parent of God”
But while many Romans are given cause to celebrate this year, I will hang on here to what is left as long as it is left.
And Faraway writes: “As a teacher, I’m having difficulty in correcting student’s writing , e.g. I am uncertain about ‘Everybody was reading their(?!) books’… Is this supposed to be standard English today?”
This was actually being discussed in my college classes ten years ago…
Given the trajectory, it would seem to be a good possibility that this WILL be accepted sooner than later.