Poster�s Note: This article is posted to provide concrete examples of the problems with accuracy that come when translators embrace the use of gender-neutral language. It should be clear that problems such as these are avoided when translators translate literally. Liturgiam Authenticam directs this literal style: �the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses�. While this review of the NRSV does not reference LA most the points made here can be supported by LA.

------------

What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations
Wayne Grudem
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
www.cbmw.org [cbmw.org] (Reposted here with permission) | Link to original article [cbmw.org]

The publicity brochure of the New Revised Standard Version sounds so sensible. At last, we are told, misleading, masculine-oriented language has been removed from the Bible. Jesus no longer says, �and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself� (RSV), but instead, �And I...will draw all people to myself� (John 12:32, NRSV).

This is an improvement: the word men isn�t specified by the Greek text, and all people is a faithful rendering of the Greek pronoun pas. Changes like this use �gender-neutral� language without sacrificing accuracy in translation. In addition, the NRSV has not gone as far as some people wanted, because it still calls God �Father� (not �Parent�), for example, and calls Jesus the �Son of God� (not �Child of God�)--probably in large measure due to the conservative influence of the chairman of the NRSV translation committee, evangelical New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger.

But there are many other changes -- literally, thousands -- that should cause evangelicals much concern. The translators consistently disregarded precise, grammatically correct English equivalents and resorted to gender-neutral paraphrases. The preface explains that the copyright holder (the Division of Education and Ministry of the National Council of Churches of Christ) required that �masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture.� To fulfil this requirement, the translation committee explains that it had to depart from its ordinary principles of making �essentially a literal translation.�

For example, the preface says that they used �periphrastic renderings� to compensate for �the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun� in English--in other words, they used paraphrase to eliminate �he,� �him,� and �his� where they were used in generic statements to refer to either a man or a woman. It is significant that the NRSV translators do not claim that such gender-neutral translations are more accurate, or even could be carried out within their guiding maxim, �as literal as possible, as free as necessary.� Rather, they admit that they had to resort to paraphrase to make the translation gender-neutral. In addition to generic he-him-his, other �masculine-oriented� words such as �father,� �son,� �son of man,� �man,� and �brother� were removed from several hundred verses.

The NRSV in 1989 was the first major �gender neutral� translation, but many of its patterns have been followed by the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (ncv), the Contemporary English Version (CEV), and (in England only) the New International Version-Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). I have based this analysis on the NRSV as the foundational gender-neutral Bible, but I compare it at several points to the NLT, ncv, CEV, and the NIVI. On the other hand, the current NIV, NASB, KJV, nKJV, and the old RSV are not gender-neutral translations and they are not evaluated here.

In the first part of this article I examine the changes made in order to eliminate thousands of examples of the offensive masculine words �he,� �man,� �father,� �son,� and �brother.� In the second part, I examine English usage today, asking whether the language has changed so much that such gender-neutral translations are necessary today.

A. CHANGES MADE TO ELIMINATE �HE�

1. Changing �he� to �they� The translators of the NRSV found the little word he especially troubling. We can appreciate the difficulty they encountered in a verse such as John 14:23: �Jesus answered him, �If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him�� (RSV).

There would be no problem in beginning the sentence, �If anyone loves me...� because the Greek pronoun tis does not specify a man. But then how can we finish the sentence? One might think of using �he or she� in some cases, but it would soon become exceptionally awkward. We would end up with this monstrosity of English style:

The NRSV translators did not want to do this, so they changed the singulars to plurals instead:

The problem is that Jesus did not speak with plural pronouns here; he used singulars. Jesus wanted to specify that he and the Father would come and dwell with an individual believer. But the NRSV has lost that emphasis, because the plurals �those� and �them� indicate a group of people. �We will come to them and make our home with them indicates coming to a group of people, such as a church. The words of Jesus have been unnecessarily changed in translation, and the meaning is different. This is what the NRSV preface says are the �paraphrastic renderings� they had to use in dealing with gender-related language, and the preface rightly sets these in contrast to the rest of the NRSV, which is called �essentially a literal translation.�

The rejection of generic �he, him, his� obscures the personal application of Scripture in many other verses, such as �I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me� (Rev. 3:20, where three Greek pronouns are masculine singular). The NRSV changes this to, �I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me,� but �you� in this context would then refer to the whole church, and individual application of a familiar verse is lost. The NIVI, ncv, CEV and NLT, change �him� to �them,� which also represents Jesus eating with a whole church, not just an individual. This is a serious loss of the specific individual application that Scripture intended for our benefit.

There is a Messianic prediction in Psalm 34:20: �He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken� (RSV). John�s gospel refers to this (and probably Exod. 12:46) with respect to Jesus� death: �For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled, �Not a bone of him shall be broken�� (19:36, RSV). But the NRSV will not allow such a prediction about an individual man in Psalm 34, so the prediction is plural: �He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken� (NRSV). The individuality of the Messianic prediction, so wonderfully fulfilled in Jesus� death, is lost to readers of the NRSV. And the ncv, NLT, and NIVI all have �their bones� as well, even though the statement is singular (�his bones�) in Hebrew.

Other passages in the NRSV suffer the same fate: John 15:5 becomes, �I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.� (Jesus no longer says he will abide in an individual believer.) John 14:21 now says, �They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.� (Jesus no longer specifies that he will love and reveal himself to an individual person.) The singular pronouns that Jesus frequently used are all changed to plurals. Many verses that specify a relationship between God and the individual believer have been obscured or removed from Scripture.

In response to this, someone might object that other verses in the Bible, and even other verses in these contexts, use plurals to speak to us. I agree that other verses have plurals, but that is not the point: these verses have singulars, and they should not be changed to plurals in translation.

Another objection might be that Jesus used generic �he� because he mostly spoke to men. Was this the reason? Certainly not. Many women also followed him (see Luke 8:3, where �many others� is feminine). And even when talking to an individual woman he used generic �he,� telling the woman at the well, �Whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will never thirst� (John 4:14). Jesus considered the third person masculine singular pronoun (Greek autos, �he, him�) to be inclusive when used in general sentences like this, even when speaking to one woman alone.

Consider James 5:14-15 in the RSV: �Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him . . . and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up . . .�

Now there would be no objection to changing �the sick man� to �the sick person� (there is no word specifying �man� in the Greek text), but the NRSV has gone much further: all the singulars are changed to plurals, to avoid the forbidden word �him�: �Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up . . .� The situation that comes to mind is entirely different; James wrote about a private home with one person sick, but now it looks like a hospital ward! The meaning has been changed. This is not accurately translating the Bible; it is rewriting the Bible.

How often are singulars changed to plurals? The words �they, them, their, those� occur 1,732 more times in the NRSV than in the RSV. In many other places, �he� has been changed to �you� or �we.� Why? There have been no new archaeological discoveries, no changes in our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, no ancient texts discovered that make us put plural pronouns instead of singular in these places, or first or second person in place of third person. The changes have been made because the NRSV translators were required by a division of the National Council of Churches to remove �masculine oriented language� from the Bible.

This is not a small difference in the meaning of a few verses. This systematic change from singulars to plurals is a substantial alteration in the flavor and tone of the entire Bible, with a significant loss in the Bible�s emphasis on God relating directly to a specific, individual person.

Most readers of these gender-neutral Bibles will think the plurals were in the original, and they will interpret and teach these passages accordingly. But these plurals were not what God�s Word itself said. Since �all Scripture is God-breathed� (2 Tim. 3:16), and �every word of God proves true� (Prov. 30:5), we must conclude that God caused singular pronouns to be used in each of these places for his own purposes, and, if there is any way to translate them as singulars in legitimate English today, we are not at liberty to change them to plurals in translation.

2. Changing the third person to the second person. In Galatians 6:7, Paul wrote, �Whatever a man sows, that will he also reap� (RSV). Changing �man� to �person� would have been fine, since the Greek is not gender-specific. But to avoid �he,� the NRSV says, �You reap whatever you sow.�

Readers will now wrongly think that Paul is speaking only of something that is true of Christians, the �you� to whom he is writing. This would be properly interpreting the English of the NRSV. But in fact, Paul is making a much more general statement about human conduct and about people generally. The NRSV changes �he� to �you,� but that is not what Paul wrote. This kind of change has happened repeatedly. Once again, this is not translating the Bible; it is rewriting the Bible and giving the verse a different sense. (The NLT and CEV also have �you�; the ncv and NIVI change to plural, �people.�)

3. Removing direct quotations. In Psalm 41, David tells of his enemies speaking against him: �My enemies say of me in malice, �When will he die, and his name perish?�� (Ps. 41:5). But in the NRSV the words �he� and �his� had to be removed, and in this case the speech of the enemies is turned into thoughts in their minds: �My enemies wonder in malice when I will die, and my name perish� (NRSV). But the Hebrew text does not say they simply wondered; it says they spoke (�amar). An accurate translation should tell us that. (The CEV changes �he� to �you,� but the NCV, NLT, and NIVI accurately retain �he.�)

Why does the NRSV try so hard to avoid using �he� in a generic sense? The preface explains that they used paraphrase �chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language -- the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun.� What is surprising is that they say the problem is with English while they fail to mention that Hebrew and Greek also lack �a common gender third person singular pronoun,� and both languages use a third person singular masculine pronoun (�he�) in singular generic statements. Therefore there is no problem with English at all if we want it to translate the generic statements in the Bible -- it precisely and accurately translates the common generic use of �he� in Hebrew and Greek.

4. Errors in God�s ordinances. Turning the Bible�s singulars to plurals can give meanings the translators did not expect. In Psalm 19, a familiar verse says, �But who can discern his errors?� (19:12, RSV). The NRSV changed this to, �But who can detect their errors?� Readers will rightly look at the preceding context to see who �their� refers to -- and find this sequence: �The ordinances of the Lord are true....More to be desired are they than gold....in keeping them there is great reward. But who can detect their errors?� (verses 9-12). The NIVI similarly has, �Who can discern their errors?� On a normal reading, the proper way to understand these English statements is that God�s ordinances have errors, but they are difficult to detect. (The CEV, NCV, and NLT avoid the problem by rewording the verse in different ways: �their own,� �our,� and �my.�)

5. Anything but third person singular: God�s providential guidance of an individual person�s life is quite clear in the RSV: �A man�s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps� (Prov. 16:9). It would not be wrong to translate �A person�s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps,� for the Hebrew is not male-specific, and the individual application would be preserved. The word �his� would also accurately translate the 3rd person singular (masculine) Hebrew pronoun.

But the offensive word �his� had to go. A comparison of other gender-neutral versions shows how translators have tried almost every possible way to avoid literally translating the Hebrew pronoun as �his�:

RSV: [literal translation, preserving 3rd person singular:] A man�s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps. (The current NIV, along with the NASB, KJV, and nKJV all have the literal translation �his� as well).

ncv: [change 3rd person singular to 3rd person plural:] People may make plans in their minds, but the Lord decides what they will do.

NIVI: [change 3rd person singular to 2nd person singular:] In your heart you may plan your course, but the Lord determines your steps.

NLT: [change 3rd person singular to 1st person plural:] We can make our plans, but the Lord determines our steps. (CEV is similar.)

NRSV: [change 3rd person singular to no person:] The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps.

Such variation is almost humorous to see. It seems that any translation is acceptable except a clear, simple, literal �his.�

All of the changes involve some change in meaning. The ncv with �they� loses emphasis on the individual person. The NIVI restricts the sentence to the readers (�you�) rather than keeping it universal in application. The NLT and CEV restrict it to the speaker and hearers (�we�) rather than keeping it universal in application. The NRSV makes the statement impersonal: �The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps.� What way? Whose steps? We cannot tell. Personal application is lost. But �masculine language� and �patriarchalism� had to be eliminated, even when it most accurately represented the Hebrew or Greek text.

6. Can you trust any pronouns in gender-neutral Bibles? Another serious consequence is the erosion of readers� trust in every pronoun in the Bible. Think about it for a moment: Imagine that you have a translation that regularly changes �he, him, his� to �you� or �we� or �they.� Now you want to make a point in a sermon (or contribute something in a Bible study) based on one of those pronouns. How do you know you can depend on it? Maybe it is accurate, but then again maybe it is one of those �substitutes� that replaced �patriarchal� language. How do you know the �we� or �you� or �they� is really what God�s Word said? Unless you can check the Greek or Hebrew text yourself, you simply won�t be able trust any of those pronouns anywhere in that Bible.

For the NRSV, �we, us, our� occurs 4,500 times; �you, your, yours� occurs 21,704 times; �they, them, their� occurs 17,102 times. That is a total of 43,306 words. Even if half occur in narrative contexts where no change would be made, that still leaves over 20,000 words in the NRSV about which you can have no confidence that they faithfully represent the original text. Such erosion of trust in our English Bibles is a high price to pay for gender-neutral translations.

B. CHANGES MADE TO ELIMINATE �MAN�

1. Renaming �man.� The creation narratives tell us that �God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them� (Gen. 1:27, RSV). This name �man� is even more explicit in Genesis 5:2: �Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created� (RSV).

The name �man� is placed on both male and female, as together they constitute the human race. The translation �man� is accurate, because the Hebrew word �adam is also used to refer to Adam in particular, and it is sometimes used to refer to man in distinction from woman (see Gen 2:25, �the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed�). The English word �man� most accurately translates �adam because it is the only word we have that has those same two meanings (the human race, or a male human being). We can conclude from this usage of �adam that it is not wrong, insensitive, or discourteous to use the same word to refer to male human beings in particular and to name the human race. God himself does this in his Word.

But in the NRSV the name �man� has disappeared: �so God created humankind in his image� (Gen. 1:27). And God is suddenly found to give a different name to the race: �Male and female he created them, and he...named them �Humankind� when they were created� (Gen. 5:2, NRSV). (The ncv, CEV, and NIVI have �human beings� here, and the NLT has �human.�) The word �humankind� occurs 34 more times in the NRSV, replacing the word �man� with a new name for the human race.

The problem is that �humankind,� �human beings,� and �human� are not names that can also refer to man in distinction from woman, and thus they are a less accurate translations of �adam than the word �man.� The male overtones of the Hebrew word are lost.

The name given to a person or a thing has great significance in the Bible. The names of God tell us much about his nature (such as �I Am Who I Am,� or �the Lord of Hosts�). The names of God�s people are often changed (such as Abram to Abraham) to signify a different status or character. Similarly, the name that God gives to the human race is significant. The word �man� for the whole human race suggests some male headship in the race. God did not name the race with a Hebrew term that corresponds to our word �woman,� nor did he choose (or devise) some �gender neutral� term without male overtones. He named the race with a Hebrew term that most closely corresponds to our English word �man.�

Then why not translate it �man�? Apparently such a precise English equivalent was thought �patriarchal.� The �Preface� to the NIVI explains that �it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit� (p. vii). The sentence implies that there is some �patriarchalism� in the text that is not part of the �message of the Spirit.� These �patriarchal� elements can be �muted� and the message of the Spirit, apparently, is not harmed. But what if these very same �patriarchal� elements in the text of Scripture are part of what the Holy Spirit intended to be there? If we hold to the absolute divine authority of every word of Scripture, then we should not seek to �mute� any content that the Holy Spirit caused to be there!

2. Using �mortal� instead of �man.� The NRSV commonly substitutes the word �mortal� where the RSV and other versions have the word man. For example, when Cornelius fell down and began to worship Peter, Peter lifted him up and said, �Stand up; I too am a man� (Acts 10:26, RSV). But in the NRSV Peter says, �Stand up; I am only a mortal.�
This matters because the emphasis is different, for the word mortal shifts the emphasis from one�s humanity to one�s mortality (that is, one�s liability to death). Peter does not refuse worship because he is �mortal� or one who is subject to death (in fact, he will live forever). He refuses worship because he is a creature made by God; he is not God, but a man. That is what the Greek text says. And that is what the English translation ought to say, if it is accurate. There is a perfectly good Greek adjective which means �mortal, subject to death� (phthartos), but that is not the word Peter uses. (The CEV, NCV, NLT, and NIVI all have �human� here.)

In fact, in its efforts to avoid the word �man� the NRSV sounds almost humorous as it anachronistically projects modern concerns for politically correct speech back into the mouth of first century speakers. For example, the NRSV makes the citizens of Tyre shout to King Agrippa, �The voice of a god and not of a mortal!� (Acts 12:22) -- as if even those first century speakers were afraid to use the word �man� when referring to a human being in distinction from a god. (The CEV and NLT rightly retain �man� here, but the NCV avoids �man� with �a human,� and the NIVI has �mere mortal.�)

These changes often produce English that is truly strange. When God speaks to Ezekiel, he no longer says, �Son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak with you� (Ezek. 2:1, RSV), but now says, �O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you� (NRSV). The NCV has God calling Ezekiel by the name �Human�: �He said to me, ëHuman, stand up on your feet�� (2:1), and �Human, go to the people of Israel and speak my words to them� (3:4). This may be �politically correct� terminology today, but it is terribly unnatural English.

We readers even find ourselves addressed by the name �mortal�: �He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?� (Micah 6:8). And the famous chapter on love now begins, �If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal� (1 Cor. 13:1, NRSV). This is not ordinary English usage today. It is artificially contrived English for the purpose of politically correct speech. (In Micah 6:8, all these versions avoid the term �man,� using instead �you human� (NCV), �you, O people� (NIVI), �you� (NLT), or �us� (CEV). In 1 Cor. 13:1, the versions speak of languages of �humans� (CEV, NIVI), or of �people� (NCV), or �in any language in heaven or on earth� (NLT).)

These changes also affect much of the Bible. The words �mortal� and �mortals� occur 205 more times in the NRSV than in the RSV, in most cases giving a nuance of mortality which the authors did not intend.

3. Neutering specific men. The Greek word aner is used when an author wants to specify a man or men in distinction from a woman (or women). The word is a specifically male term that can mean �man� or �husband,� depending on the context. Surprisingly, the NRSV several times avoids translating even this word as �man� or �men.� For example, though the Greek text explicitly says that Judas Barsabbas and Silas were �leading men� sent from the Jerusalem Council, the NRSV changes this to �leaders� (Acts 15:22). Similarly, we know that only men were elders at Ephesus, so it made sense that Paul warned, �from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things,� but the NRSV neuters these men, calling them simply �some� (Acts 20:30). And Paul himself no longer says, �When I became a man (aner), I gave up childish ways,� but �when I became an adult� (1 Cor. 13:11). (The NLT, CEV, and NIVI translate all three of those verses in gender-neutral ways; the ncv does the same in two verses, but preserves �man� in 1 Cor. 13:11.)

In a crucial passage on the qualifications for elders, the husbands have disappeared from the NRSV. Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in Crete who are �the husband of one wife� (Titus 1:6, RSV), but the NRSV translates, �married only once� (NRSV), which of course could include women elders as well as men.

But the Greek text specifies men, for aner means explicitly a man in distinction from a woman (it can mean �man� or �husband,� depending on the context). Moreover, the verse simply does not mean �married only once,� because there is no verb for �married� in what Paul wrote: he just said mias gynaikos aner, which is literally �the husband of one wife.� (The CEV also allows for women elders with its translation �faithful in marriage,� while the NCV, NLT, and NIVI accurately preserve the idea that the verse is speaking about a husband.)

Such changes indicate an antipathy toward the word �man,� even when the original text had the male- specific term aner. The National Council of Churches required that much �masculine-oriented language� should be �eliminated,� and the translators carried out that mandate.

Another Greek term, anthropos, can mean either �man� or �person,� depending on the context. But the NRSV often refused to translate it �man� or �men� even when that sense was clear. For example, the RSV rightly says that the Old Testament high priest was chosen �from among men�(Heb. 5:1), but the NRSV changes it to �from among mortals� -- for what purpose? No woman could be a high priest in the Old Testament.

Even Jesus is not exempt from the NRSV�s aversion to calling a man a man. Where the RSV had �as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead�(1 Cor. 15:21), the NRSV says, �since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being� (1 Cor. 15:21). This is theologically important: the representative headship of Adam and Christ as men is omitted. (The ncv and NLT have �man� here, but the NIVI has �human being�; the CEV paraphrases with the proper names Adam and Christ.)

4. The disappearance of the righteous man from wisdom literature. Psalm 1 begins with a description of a righteous man: �Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners..but his delight is in the law of the Lord� (RSV). Here the Hebrew word for �man� is �ish, which ordinarily means a �man� in distinction from woman (except in some rare idiomatic constructions). The �default� sense of the word, the sense readers would attach to this word unless the context required another sense, is �man.� Psalm 1 holds up a solitary righteous man who stands against plural �sinners� as an example for all Israelites to emulate (similarly, Proverbs 31 holds up a godly woman as an example to emulate).

But this righteous man is gone from the NRSV: �Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked...but their delight is in the law of the LORD.� The NIVI similarly says �Blessed are those...their delight...,� and the ncv, CEV, and NLT do the same.

Now there is no ambiguity in the original Hebrew text over the fact that the righteous �man� is singular and �the wicked,� �sinners,� and �scoffers� are all in plural. Prior to the advent of the �gender-neutral� NRSV in 1989, all English translations rendered Psalm 1 this way -- the blessed �man� was singular, and �sinners� and �scoffers� were plural. Of course, some scholars may question whether the psalmist intended this singular-plural contrast to be something that readers noticed, something that is important to interpreting the Psalm, so that we notice the courage of this solitary man in contrast to many �sinners.� People may differ over whether this is intended, but the point remains: English readers should be able to have an English translation that lets them know that the singular-plural contrast is there, so that they may consider for themselves whether such a contrast is important for interpretation. With a gender-neutral translation, they do not even have that option.

The NIVI �Preface� explains what led to this translation of Hebrew singular words with English plural words. It was not that scholars suddenly discovered in 1992 that the singular Hebrew word ha�ish (�the man�) was really plural (which would have required ha�anashim). Rather, the translators tell us that �In order to avoid gender-specific language in statements of a general kind, it was agreed that the plural might be substituted for the singular and the second person for the third person� (p. vii). Evangelical Christians should ponder that sentence well: it says they �substituted� plurals for singulars, and second person statements for third person. It does not say the original Hebrew or Greek words were plural, or were in the second person. It says they changed (�substituted�) singulars to plurals and third person to second person.

Psalm 1 is a good example of this process: the maleness of the passage was �muted� by changing to plurals: �Blessed are those...their delight is in the law of the Lord.� Suddenly the �patriarchal� language is gone. It hasn�t disappeared from the Hebrew text (which still talks about a single �man,� and uses masculine singular pronouns to speak of �his� delight in the law of the Lord, on which say �he� meditates day and night.) But the offensive �patriarchalism� that was in the Hebrew text has disappeared from the English translation.

I strongly disagree with this procedure. The evangelical doctrine of Scripture is that every word of the original is exactly what God wanted it to be, because �all Scripture is God-breathed� (2 Tim. 3:16). If God caused Psalm 1 to be written with singular nouns and pronouns, then we should reflect the sense of those words in English translation. We must not �substitute� other words with different senses.

At this point someone may object, �But doesn�t Psalm 1 also apply to women? Then shouldn�t we translate it as �they� so that women don�t miss the point?� Of course it applies to women as well, just as the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) applies to daughters as well as sons. But we must not translate Luke 15 to speak of a prodigal �child,� or Psalm 1:1 to speak of the blessed �person,� for that is not what the words mean in those verses. The definite expression ha�ish (�the man�) uses a specifically male-oriented word to mean, �the man.�

5. Making the army of Israel gender-neutral. Several battle passages talk about the �men of war,� such as, �Your servants have counted the men of war who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us� (Num. 31:49, RSV). The word �men� was objectionable here, however, so the NRSV has, �Your servants have counted the warriors who are under our command, and not one of us is missing. (NRSV). Similarly, in Numbers 31:28, �the men of war who went out to battle� (RSV) becomes �the warriors who went out to battle� (NRSV). Even the males who were circumcised in Joshua 5:4 are not called �men of war,� but �warriors.�

The NRSV is inaccurate on two counts here: First, there is no reason to hide the historical fact that only men went forth to war in the Old Testament. Second, the Hebrew phrase �anshe hammilchamah can only be male: it says �men of war.� (The CEV, NCV, and NIVI similarly change �men of war� to �soldiers� in Num. 31:28, 49, while the NLT has �army � in one verse and �men� in the other. But all four versions differ from the NRSV and wisely indicate that it was men who were circumcised in Joshua 5:4.)

Does this make any difference? I recently corresponded with people involved in the current national debate over whether women should serve in combat in our armed forces. They were wondering if the Bible showed a pattern of male responsibility to go to war and protect a nation�s women and children. I found quite a bit of evidence for such a pattern in the Old Testament historical narratives in the RSV, but much of it was obliterated in the NRSV, because the �men of war� had all disappeared.

Of course, someone may wish to argue that an all-male combat force was an Old Testament custom that was culturally limited to that time, and need not be a pattern for us today. But that is not my point here. My point is that translators have an obligation to translate the Old Testament so that readers can at least know that that was what happened then. What use we make of the text is another question, but before we can even ask that question we need to know what the Old Testament text actually says. The NRSV does not tell us.

6. Eliminating �son of man� in the Old Testament. In the interests of gender sensitivity, the NRSV systematically removed the phrase �son of man� from the Old Testament (it occurs 106 times in the RSV Old Testament, but zero times in the NRSV Old Testament). Especially troubling is Daniel 7:13, �with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man� (RSV), which is changed to �one like a human being� (NRSV). Readers of the NRSV would never know that Jesus refers to this passage when he tells the high priest, �Hereafter, you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven� (Matt. 26:64, RSV). The phrase is made �gender- neutral,� but unnecessary inaccuracy is introduced.

The NRSV also changes �son of man� in Psalm 8:4 �What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?� (RSV) becomes, �What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?� (NRSV). The quotation of this verse and its application to Christ in Hebrews 2:6-9 are obscured. In Ezekiel, where God often calls the prophet �son of man,� the NRSV consistently changes the title to �mortal� (�O mortal, stand up on your feet,� Ezek. 2:1).

The ncv is also consistently gender-neutral in these passages: it changes �son of man� to �human being� in Daniel 7:13 and �human beings� in Psalm 8:4, and has God repeatedly calling Ezekiel �Human� rather than �son of man.� The CEV, NLT and NIVI, however, only avoid �man� and �son of man� in Psalm 8:4, not in Daniel or Ezekiel.

7. Is this just a difference of translation theory? At this point someone may object that I am just arguing for a certain theory of translation, one that advocates �literal translation� rather than �dynamic translation.� This is not an accurate way to represent my position, nor is this issue one of literal versus dynamic translation theory, because the Living Bible was a dynamic translation, and for the most part it was not gender-neutral. In fact, some of the translators who worked on the New Living Translation did not use gender-neutral language in their dynamic translation work, but their work was changed at a higher editorial level. But this was not necessary, for even in very simple, easily understood translations, the words �he� and �man� and �father� and �brother� are not hard to understand. Far less readable is �mortal� or �humanity� or �humankind�!

C. CHANGES MADE TO ELIMINATE FATHERS, SONS, BROTHERS

1. The neutering of fathers and sons. A computer analysis can show us the extent of other word changes, at least for the NRSV. The word �father� (including plural and possessive forms) occurs 601 fewer times in the NRSV than in the RSV. The word �son� occurs 181 fewer times (including the loss of �son of man� 106 times in the Old Testament). The word �brother� occurs 71 fewer times. Coupled with the loss of �he, him, his� (3408 times where it is dropped or changed to �you� or �we� or �they�), and the loss of �man� (over 300 times where it is changed to �human� or �mortal, mortals�), this drive for gender-neutral language has resulted in unnecessary introductions of inaccuracy in over 4500 places in the Bible.

Why do I say inaccuracy? Because we have gained no new knowledge of Hebrew or Greek that would so fundamentally change our understanding of the common Hebrew and Greek terms that have always been translated �father,� �son,� �brother,� �man,� �he, him, his,� etc. It is rather that these terms have now been thought unacceptable or �patriarchal.�

With regard to the other translations, an electronic text is not yet available to me, so I can only report a general impression that the NIVI and CEV are perhaps two-thirds as �gender-neutral� as the NRSV, and the NLT and ncv perhaps a little over one-half as �gender-neutral.� The �thought-for-thought� philosophy of the NLT makes it harder to compare at times, because the absence of gender-specific language in some verses was probably not due to a desire for gender-neutral language but to a judgment that gender details in the original were not essential to the main thought being translated.

2. Orphans with living mothers. Sometimes the results of this gender-neutral policy are bewildering. For instance, the NRSV removed �fatherless� in 39 verses, substituting instead the word �orphan.� But an �orphan� is a child with no living parent, something different from being �fatherless.� Some strange passages result, even defying logic, as in one passage where the NRSV has orphan (!) children nursing at their mothers� breasts: �There are those who snatch the orphan child from the breast...� (Job 24:9).

3. Warning daughters about immoral women. Sons do not fare well in the NRSV either. For instance, several warnings from a father to his son in Proverbs contain caution against the immoral woman. Though the Hebrew word ben in singular always means �son,� not �child,� the NRSV has warnings to children -- presumably because we are not supposed to think that ancient fathers were so sexist that they only warned their �sons� about immoral women: �My child, be attentive to my wisdom....for the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil....And now, my child, listen to me....Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house� (Prov. 5:1, 3, 7-8, NRSV).

4. Dropping �brother.� The word �brother� was another �masculine-oriented word� modified by the NRSV, but a problem arose in the church discipline passage in Matthew 18:15: �If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother� (RSV).

Here the NRSV could not change the singulars to plurals, because the dispute is between only two people. In some passages, the NRSV changed �brother� to �brother or sister,� but even if that were accurate it would not work here, because it would have changed a 27-word sentence into a cumbersome 39-word conglomeration:

Another solution was necessary, so the NRSV in this case decided to keep the singular nouns but change �brother� to �member of the church�:

The difference in meaning will have consequences. First, this translation will be misused, because many people will think the passage only applies to church members and doesn�t apply to Christians who attend church but haven�t yet joined. Others will think it doesn�t apply to Christians who are members of other churches in town--someone who sins against me is not �another member of the church� that I belong to! Second, this translation may be read anachronistically, projecting the modern concept of church membership back into the first century. Third, the strong nuance of membership in a family is lost when �brother� is deleted.

Finally, the phrase �you have regained that one� is awkward, stilted English and excludes the idea of family reconciliation found in �you have gained your brother.� We may not like the fact that Jesus said, �you have gained your brother,� but that is what the text says, and that is how we should translate it.

The family nuance conveyed by �brother� is also lost in the CEV (�one of my followers�), ncv (�your fellow believer�), and NLT (�another believer�). It is preserved in the NIVI (�brother or sister�), but it adds �or sister,� which Jesus did not say.

5. The loss of �representative generic� expressions

In the example above, why did Jesus say, �If your brother sins against you...� rather than, �If your brother or sister sins against you�? He did it because he was using a form of speech that we may call a �representative generic� expression. One individual is mentioned (�your brother�) as a representative of a whole group (all brothers and sisters in Christ). Other examples of representative generics are �Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked� (Psalm 1:1) and �I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me� (Rev. 3:20). This is a form of the literary category �synecdoche,� the use of one part to represent the whole.

Another type of generic statement may be called a �pure generic.� It does not use one individual to represent a larger group, but uses a general expression like �everyone,� �all people,� �anyone,� or �no one.� The Bible has many �pure generic� expressions like, �If any one would come after me...� (Matt. 16:24) or, �I will draw all people to myself� (John 12:32), or �no one will be justified before God by the law� (Gal. 3:11).

Both �representative generics� and �pure generics� are inclusive references. That is why it is really incorrect to frame this as a discussion between �inclusive� and �non-inclusive� language. Both kinds of references are inclusive, but they take different forms.

The point is this: the Bible has many �pure generics,� and it has many �representative generics.� In the past, English translations have translated the representative generics in Hebrew and Greek as representative generics in English. Thus, the full sense of these expressions was brought over as nearly as possible.

However, these more recent gender-neutral Bibles translate the pure generics as pure generics, and they also translate the representative generics as pure generics. �Blessed is the man...� becomes �blessed are those...� �I will come in to him� becomes �I will come in to them.� Someone may object that these really �mean the same thing,� but the feminists who protested against representative generics twenty or thirty years ago certainly did not see them as equivalent in meaning. They objected to representative generics precisely because they singled out a male human being as representative of a group, and thus they had male-oriented overtones. It is precisely these overtones that are filtered out in modern gender-neutral translations.

In these new translations, the nuances of the representative generics are lost. Of course, what is lost is precisely what the early feminists objected to -- the masculine overtones of these representative generics, for they nearly always have a male (�he,� �man,� �brother�) standing for the whole group. Therefore the masculine overtones have been systematically filtered out.

Is this really bringing over �meaning for meaning� or �thought for thought� into English? It is not even bringing over �thought for thought� as accurately as it could be done, for the thought is changed: the male overtones are filtered out. The male overtones are what much of our culture objects to today, and they are the part of the meaning that is lost in gender-neutral translations. This does not really increase accuracy or even increase understanding of the representative generic idea that is in the original. Rather, it obliterates this idea. Accuracy in translation is lost, and the meaning is distorted.

6. But what about �brothers and sisters�? A difference between Greek and English

Up to this point I have listed numerous examples of inaccurate translations in the NRSV and other gender-neutral versions. A different matter arises, however, with the plural form of the Greek word adelphos, �brother.� Although in many cases the plural word adelphoi means �brothers,� and refers only to males, there are other cases where adelphoi is used to mean �brother and sister� or �brothers and sisters.� Consider the following quotations from Greek literature outside the New Testament:

1. That man is a cousin of mine: his mother and my father were adelphoi (Andocides, On the Mysteries 47 [approx. 400 B.C.]).

2. My father died leaving me and my adelphoi Diodorus and Theis as his heirs, and his property devolved upon us (Oxyrhynchus Papyri 713, 20-23 [97 A.D.; Diodorus is a man�s name and Theis is a woman�s name]).

3. The footprints of adelphoi should never match (of a man and of a woman): the man�s is greater (Euripides, Electra 536 [5th cent. B.C.]).

4. An impatient and critical man finds fault even with his own parents and children and adelphoi and neighbors (Epictetus, Discourses 1.12.20-21 [approx 130 A.D.]).

In standard English, we just don�t say, �My brothers Dave and Jenny.� So the Greek plural adelphoi sometimes has a different sense from English �brothers.� In fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, �brother,� sometimes means �brothers and sisters.� (so Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, 1957 and 1979; Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and as early as 1869).

One other important factor is that the masculine adelphos and the feminine adelphe are just different forms (masculine and feminine) of the same word adelph-. But the plural form of this word would be adelphoi when talking about a group of all men, and it would also be adelphoi when talking about a group of both men and women. Only the context could tell us whether it meant �brothers� or �brothers and sisters.� This makes Greek different from English, where bro- and sis- are completely different roots, and we wouldn�t call a mixed group of men and women �brothers.� (The root adelph- is from a-, which means �from,� and delphus, �womb� (Liddell-Scott-Jones, p. 20) and probably had an early sense of �from the same womb.�)

Why then does the New Testament sometimes specify �brothers and sisters,� putting both masculine (adelphoi) and feminine (adelphai) forms (as in Matt. 19:29 or Mark 10:30)? Sometimes the authors may have specifically included feminine forms in order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, to make it very clear that women as well as men were included in a certain statement.

But frequently in the New Testament the word adelphoi is used by itself when both men and women are addressed:

Here it seems that the original hearers would have understood him to mean something very much like �brothers and sisters� in English today. (Or technically �siblings,� but that is not the way anyone speaks to anyone else today: would we say, �Therefore, I urge you, siblings...�?)

What does the NRSV do with adelphoi? It translates it �brothers and sisters� in some places where this is probably an improvement:

The NCV, NLT, and NIVI also use �brothers and sisters� in these passages, and so preserve the nuance of family relationship. The CEV, however, uses the translation �dear friends.�

This situation seems to me to be one where the current controversy has caused us to look again at the reasons for our traditional translations and to ask if they are the best translations possible. In many cases they are, but in the case of adelphoi these more recent translations seem to have made a genuine improvement in accuracy. But I realize that not everyone will agree with me on this conclusion. Many translations may wish to leave the traditional �brothers� in these verses, out of a sense that in the current controversial climate any such change may appear to be a concession to societal pressures to adopt gender-neutral Bible translation even when accuracy is sacrificed. I understand and respect that consideration. But in this case, it seems to me that accuracy is improved by �brothers and sisters,� since �brothers� in standard current English is not a term that includes women, as the Greek intends.

[Continued in next post.]

D. THE QUESTION OF ENGLISH USAGE TODAY

Has English changed that much? Some may object that our language has changed so much that even the uses of the words he, him, his in generic statements, or the use of man to refer to the human race, would not be proper in English today. We have no choice, they would argue, but to use alternative expressions.

But this is not true. Consider the following examples from standard, contemporary English:

Examples of generic �he�

Major dictionaries all recognize generic �he,� not as archaic but as current English. The definition of �he� as a pronoun that is �used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown� is given in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, third edition (1992), p. 831. Similar definitions are found in Webster�s New World Dictionary, third college edition (1994), p. 820; the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, revised (1993), p. 879; Webster�s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition (1981), p. 1041, and Merriam Webster�s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition (1995), p. 534. Sample sentences include, �He who hesitates is lost,� �No one seems to take pride in his work anymore,� and �One should do the best he can.� There is no dispute over whether such generic usage is understandable in ordinary English today.

When we come to recommendations for how people should speak and write today, there is simply no consensus. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) polled the 173 members of its Usage Panel of experts in the English language on how to complete a series of sentences such as, �A patient who doesn�t accurately report ____ sexual history to the doctor runs the risk of misdiagnosis.� In their responses, an average of 46% of panel members used forms such as �his or her� or �her/his� (this statistic combines several forms), 37% used �his,� 3% used �their,� 2% used �her,� 2% used �a� or �the,� and 7% gave no response or felt no pronoun was needed, and a few gave other responses. But if 37% of these experts (the largest for any one specific response) continued to use �his� as their most preferred word in these sentences (and many more would have said it is acceptable but not preferred), then no one can rightly claim that generic �he, him, his� is improper English today. In spite of about 30 years of discussion, no substitutes have gained general acceptance.

Once again current dictionaries support this as a current meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) gives the meaning �the human race; mankind,� and says, for example, that 81% of its usage panel of experts approved the sentence, If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it, and 86% approved the use of the word �man� in the sentence, The Great Wall is the only man-made structure visible from space. Similar definitions of �man� to mean �the human race� are found in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1993), p. 1116, Webster�s New World Dictionary, third college edition (1994), p. 820, and Merriam Webster�s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition (1995), p. 705.

Someone may object, �But these are not very common anymore.� I agree that such expressions are somewhat less common than they used to be, but that does not mean we should avoid them in translation. All major English Bibles use numerous expressions that are much less common than these, but understandable, and necessary for accurate translation. The question is, �Does the English language today, as understood by the vast majority of its adult speakers, have �he-him-his� as a generic pronoun? And does it have the word ëman� to designate the human race?� The answer to both questions is clearly and certainly yes.

What if some women feel excluded? Another objection is, �Some women Bible readers feel excluded by such generic uses of she, him, his� and by the use of man� to name the human race, etc.� Here we have two alternatives: (a) we can change the translation to something less accurate in response to these women�s feelings, or (b) we can retain the accurate translation and explain that such language in fact is not exclusive if understood correctly -- to say it is exclusive is to misunderstand it.

How do we know such expressions do not have an �exclusive� meaning? Because the original author did not intend such an exclusive meaning, the translators did not intend such a meaning, and that is not the meaning the words have when interpreted rightly in their contexts, contexts which give abundant clues that broader senses are intended. This is just another instance of something Christians do all the time -- explain the meaning of the text to those who are misunderstanding it. We must not choose alternative (a), however (changing the translation to something less accurate), because it distorts the translation, and because once we do this there will be hundreds of others who will say they feel excluded by calling God �Father� and calling Christ �Son.� Will we change the translation again because of these objections?

Now someone might respond that some readers will misunderstand or be confused by generic �he.� But this possibility does not compare with the certainty that all readers will misunderstand the meaning if �he� is changed to �you� or �we� or �they� where the original Greek or Hebrew text does not have those words or convey those meanings.

Of course, we must admit frankly that there are powerful forces in the larger culture (including style manuals imposed on students in various universities) that are saying �he, him, his� and �man� cannot have those inclusive senses. They tell us we cannot use these words in ways they have previously been used, even if we want to. However, we must not give in to such pressures in Bible translation, for the ability to translate God�s Word accurately is at stake.

Moreover, we must remember that modern style manuals give recommendations for writing our own new compositions, an activity different from the translation of ancient documents that already exist. In accurate translation, I am not at liberty to rewrite what another person said. For example, in my own writing I may decide to say, �If people are sick they should call for the elders,� but when I find that James said, �Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him� (Jas. 5:14), I am not at liberty to change his singulars to plurals and say, �Let them call for the elders of the church and let them pray over them.� I may not even like the fact that James used singular pronouns, but that makes no difference whatsoever to my task of translation. The fundamental question here is honesty in translation. If the sentence we are translating cannot be expressed accurately in English without using singular pronouns in a generic way, then we must still use he, him, his in translating Scripture.

But shouldn�t we let Bible scholars decide this question? Some people may think that this whole matter is a technical question that we should let Bible scholars argue about, not a question Christian lay people should be involved in. I disagree with this idea. In most of the verses I have discussed, Bible scholars agree on the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek texts. In no verse quoted above does the discussion turn on intricate and highly advanced details of Hebrew and Greek. Rather, the question is really about English. Which English expressions best translate the meaning that is there in the original? Is generic �he� understandable and proper English today (as in the examples above)? Is the word �man� an understandable and proper name for the human race (as in the examples above)? Does a change from �he� to �you� or �we� or �they� distort the meaning or not? Everyone who speaks and writes English can contribute legitimately to that discussion, and can come to an informed decision on it. That is why the decisions of whole churches and whole denominations are significant in this matter: these are people who speak and write English, and many of them understand very well what the issues are, and consider this an important issue for preserving accurate translations of the Word of God. Individual Christians, along with individual churches and denominations, will ultimately decide this issue, because they will decide which Bible translations they will buy and use. Scholars of course should have a role in the discussion, but it is also possible for scholars to become too isolated in the academic world and lose a �large picture� perspective, even on the state of the English language itself.

Are most Bibles today gender-neutral? It is important that the larger Christian public not be misled into thinking that gender-neutral Bibles are �inevitable� or are �the wave of the future.� Some incautious statements have implied just this. For example, one article said, �Most Bibles today render gender-specific terms such as he or men with more accurate terms, such as they and human beings, when translators believe the text warrants it� (Christianity Today, July 14, 1997, page 62).

At a very strict level of interpretation, this sentence is true but affirms nothing. By adding the phrase �when translators believe the text warrants it,� the writer has qualified the sentence in such a way that it of course cannot be contradicted. The sentence would be true of the King James Version, the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, or the present NIV. It is true that translators of those versions changed �he� or �men� to �they � or �human beings� whenever they �believed the text warranted it,� which was never. But the sentence is still true, because it said they did it when they believed the text warranted it.

In this way, the sentence is similar to the sentence, �Most Bibles today call God Mother when translators believe the text warrants it.� The sentence is not false, but it fails to mention that the translators never in fact think that the text warrants it.

But that is not the level at which most readers will understand the sentence, or in fact the level at which the sentence was probably intended. Read more quickly, the sentence simply affirms that �most Bibles today� replace �he� and �men� with the gender-neutral terms �they� and �human beings.� If the sentence is taken in that way, it is difficult to understand how such an assertion could be substantiated.

Recent Bible sales figures show that the NIV is the largest selling English Bible, with 35%-45% of the market, and it is not gender-neutral. In approximate numbers, the KJV accounts for another 25% of the market, and the NKJV another 10%, and they are not gender-neutral. When we add the substantial sales of the NASB, along with the New American Bible (a Roman Catholic version that accounts for 6%-10% of the market), Bibles that are not gender-neutral have over 80% of the market for English Bibles sold today. As this current controversy over gender-neutral Bibles becomes more broadly known to the Christian public, I believe most Christians and most churches will decide not to accept gender-neutral Bibles, and then the market share held by Bibles that are not gender-neutral may well reach over 90%. In any case, it is simply not true that most Bibles sold today use gender-neutral language.

Should we translate according to how we predict the language will change? At this point someone may agree that English has not changed that much yet, but may say, �The language is changing whether we like it or not, and generic ëhe-him-his� will not exist in 5 or 10 more years.� This claim should be recognized for what it is: an unsubstantiated prediction of the future which cannot be proven. In fact, several factors argue against this prediction. English stylist William Zinsser, in On Writing Well, fifth edition (1994), says, �let�s face it: the English language is stuck with the generic masculine� (p. 123). The current American Heritage Dictionary (1992), concludes a long discussion on generic �he� with this prediction: �The entire question is unlikely to be resolved in the near future� (p. 831).

The reason that people who speak and write English resist abolishing generic he, him, his is that there are times when clear and accurate writing requires the use of a third-person singular pronoun with the person�s sex unspecified or unknown. Zinsser says, �A style that converts every �he� into a �they� will quickly turn to mush....I don�t like plurals; they weaken writing because they are less specific than the singular, less easy to visualize� (pp. 122-123). And the American Heritage Dictionary speaks of �a persistent intuition that expressions such as everyone and each student should in fact be treated as grammatically singular� (p. 831).

Three professional linguists have told me they knew of no human language that lacked a singular pronoun that was used generically (in some languages it is a masculine singular pronoun; in others, a neuter singular pronoun). Therefore, people who predict that English will soon relinquish generic �he, him, his,� when there is no commonly agreed singular substitute, are predicting that English -- perhaps the most versatile language in history -- will lose a capability possessed by all major languages in the world. This is highly unlikely.

In fact, people who predict that English will lose generic �he� need to explain why they think English will become different from all other human languages that have a singular pronoun (not just a plural one like �they�) that is used generically.

In any case, we should not base present translations on uncertain predictions of what the language will be in the future. Predictions of the future have a surprising way of turning out to be wrong.

E. CULTURAL PRESSURES ON LANGUAGE ARE NOT ALWAYS NEUTRAL

I have talked to several people who worked on translating some of these gender-neutral versions, and I realize that many of them do not have �feminist� convictions or share the goals of �egalitarians� or �evangelical feminists.� However, I am not sure if people realize how much our language itself has been under pressure to conform to �politically correct� patterns of speech that were first demanded by feminists in the 1960s and are now demanded by other interest groups as well. Moreover, the preface to the NRSV explains exactly what led to these changes: It was a requirement from the National Council of Churches to eliminate �masculine-oriented language.� And the preface to the NIVI explains that they thought it appropriate at times �to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers.� Those who protest that these gender-neutral changes in Bible translation are only for purposes of clarity and proper use of English today have not fully taken into account these fundamental statements of translation goals expressed in prefaces of these translations. Certainly there was some desire to mute the masculine-oriented language of the Bible as originally written in Hebrew and Greek, if these sentences have any meaning at all.

But we should all agree that another factor was also involved, the desire to use contemporary English that is clear and understandable to readers in general. As I have noted throughout this paper, not all of the changes due to perceived changes in English have been objectionable, and some (such as saying �any one� instead of �any man� where the original is not gender-specific) have been improvements.

However, we should not assume that modern language trends are always morally and spiritually neutral, so that Christians should meekly follow these trends or even try to keep one step ahead of the latest fad. The attempt to eliminate �man� as a name for the human race is not neutral, but conflicts with the male-oriented name �adam that God gave the race in Genesis 1:27 and 5:2. And the attempt to do away with �he� as a generic pronoun -- especially if no other singular pronoun is widely accepted -- would make the accurate translation of most generic singular statements in Scripture impossible.

Some style manuals imposed on students today tell them to avoid generic �he� and rewrite their sentences in other ways. Of course people can rewrite their sentences with plurals, or change to the second person, or clutter them with �he or she,� but then the sentences say something different and they sound different and their meaning is different. But if the author does not want to say the �something different,� but wants to use a pronoun to say something that is brief, uncluttered, specific and individualized, then a generic third person singular pronoun is needed. Since �he� is the only recognized English word that functions that way, if �he� is ruled out, the result will be that the would-be rulers of the language will have told us that there are certain things that we cannot say. We are permitted by them to say something similar, something related, something that sounds nearly the same, but we cannot say precisely what we want to say. It is not surprising that wise writers have resisted such a mandate, for if this kind of rule should ever prevail, the English language would be impoverished, and our thought would be impoverished.

The pressure to conform to �politically correct� speech is primarily a pressure not to use certain expressions. But when our freedom to use certain expressions is taken away, then our ability to think in certain ways is also curtailed. For example, if all generic singular statements are removed from the Bible, then the ability to think of a representative individual who stands for a whole group will have been removed -- for we will have no words in which to formulate our thought. There will be no way to say, �If any one loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him� (John 14:23), and thus there will be no way to think of that precise idea. Restricting certain types of expression is restricting certain types of thought.

George Orwell understood this well in his novel 1984. One of the government functionaries who is rewriting the dictionary explains what is really happening when he revises English into the Newspeak that is required by Big Brother:

We must not quietly acquiesce to every modern trend in language, nor should we feel powerless before these trends. The evangelical world as a whole also has an influence on the language. Bible translations in particular have historically had a major impact on their own languages, and still have much influence today. The Bible is still the most widely read book in the English language, and retaining generic �he� in Bible translations will also help protect our ability to use this precise translation in future generations.

This will not be the last time that trends in the culture bring pressure to bear on the language and pressure to bear on Bible translation. Already the CEV has removed another supposed source of modern �offense,� because it changes �the Jews� to �the people� or �the crowd� in passages where they oppose Jesus, as Matt. 28:15; John 10:19, 31; 18:31; 19:7, 12. And one prominent reviewer of the NRSV complained that it had not gone far enough, because it �makes not the slightest gesture toward minimizing masculine pronouns for God,� and he calls this �the single deficiency of the NRSV which is of such magnitude as will render it in its present form unusable for many believers� (Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., �The NRSV and the REB: a New Testament Critique,� Theology Today 47:3 (Oct., 1990), p. 286).

We must realize that such pressure to change the text of Scripture to conform to certain trends in the culture will be relentless, and it will be applied to every Bible translation, and it will not be satisfied merely with the kinds of changes in the NRSV. If evangelical translators and publishers give in to the principle of sacrificing accuracy because certain expressions are thought to be offensive to the dominant culture, this altering of the text of Scripture will never end. And then readers will never know at any verse whether what they have is the Bible or the translator�s own ideas.

F. CONCLUSION

I realize that some Christians will object to the fact that I have even written this pamphlet or raised this issue. Isn�t this just �fighting over all the wrong issues�? Why do Christians have to differ with each other over these matters?

I have written this because I do not think this is an issue that should be swept under the rug. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Churches passed resolutions this summer (1997) opposing �inclusive language� Bibles, because they knew this was an important issue. The accuracy and integrity of many words of Scripture are at stake, and these are the very words of God.

When I read the NRSV, I wonder what has happened to the reverence for every word of Scripture that was so common in the church in previous generations. The words of Scripture are not ours to tamper with as we please. In the second century, Marcion tried to remove from Scripture all the sections he disagreed with. The Jehovah�s Witnesses have a special translation that changes a few key words to suit their doctrine. Now we have an NRSV that does a very similar thing in order to eliminate �masculine language� from thousands of verses of Scripture. When it does this, it unnecessarily distorts the meaning of the Word of God. And so do the other gender-neutral versions (CEV, ncv, NIVI, and NLT) that follow its precedent.

--------------

Wayne Grudem is professor of Biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, President of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and Vice President of the Evangelical Theological Society. He has a B.A. from Harvard, an M.Div. from Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, and a Ph.D. in New Testament from Cambridge University, England.Appendix: Colorado Springs Guidelines

In recent controversies over gender-neutral Bibles, Christians have begun to wonder which Bibles they can trust to translate gender-related language accurately.

Here are some guidelines recently endorsed by Christian leaders who agreed that �it is inappropriate to use gender-neutral language when it diminishes accuracy in the translation of the Bible.� These guidelines were written at a meeting convened by Dr. James Dobson in Colorado Springs on May 27, 1997.

If you want to know what Bible translations you can trust, one place to start is to ask your Christian book dealer or your pastor if your translation meets these guidelines. Several widely-used translations already meet these guidelines, including the NIV, NASB, RSV, KJV, and NKJV.

COLORADO SPRINGS GUIDELINES FOR TRANSLATION OF GENDER-RELATED LANGUAGE IN SCRIPTURE

A. Gender-related renderings of Biblical language which we affirm:

B. Gender-related renderings which we will generally avoid, though there may be unusual exceptions in certain contexts:

C. We understand these guidelines to be representative and not exhaustive, and that some details may need further refinement.

SOME EXAMPLES YOU CAN CHECK FOR YOURSELF

The following verses illustrate the guidelines for translation of gender-related language in Scripture. For Guideline A1 (first sentence): John 14:23; Rev. 3:20; (second sentence): John 3:18. A2: Psalm 1:2; 34:20; Gal. 6:7; James 5:14-15. A3: See guidelines for examples; also Psalm 90:3. A4: Hebrew: Psalm 1:1; Greek: Acts 20:30; 1 Cor. 13:11. A5 (first sentence): Matt. 12:36; (second sentence): 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5. A6: Matt. 16:24. A7: Gal. 3:11. A8: John 12:32. A9: Psalm 8:4; Dan. 7:13. A10: Matt. 6:9; John 3:16. B1: Matt. 18:15. B2 (first sentence): Gal. 4:7; (second sentence): Exod. 19:6. B3: Gen. 48:21. (This list of verses was not part of the original signed statement.)

Affirmed at a meeting at Focus on the Family Headquarters, May 27, 1997 (and revised Sept. 9, 1997), by:

-Ken Barker, Secretary, Committee on Bible Translation; Member, Executive Committee of Committee on Bible Translation
-Timothy Bayly, Executive Director, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Pastor, Church of the Good Shepherd, Bloomington, Indiana
-Joel Belz, Publisher, God�s World Publications
-James Dobson, President, Focus on the Family
-Wayne Grudem, President, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
-Charles Jarvis, Executive Vice President, Focus on the Family
-John Piper, Member, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood; Senior Pastor, Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota
-Vern S. Poythress, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Westminster Theological Seminary
-R. C. Sproul, Chairman, Ligonier Ministries
-Ron Youngblood, Member, Committee on Bible Translation; Professor of Old Testament, Bethel Theological Seminary West

These guidelines have also been endorsed by Gleason Archer, Hudson Armerding, Clinton E. Arnold, S. M. Baugh, Alistair Begg, James Montgomery Boice, James Borland, Bill Bright, Vonette Bright, Harold O. J. Brown, Bryan Chapell, Edmund Clowney, Robert Coleman, Charles Colson, Jack Cottrell, Jerry Falwell, John Frame, W. Robert Godfrey, Jack Hayford, H. Wayne House , Elliott Johnson, Peter Jones, Mary Kassian, D. James Kennedy, George W. Knight III, Andreas Kostenberger, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Gordon R. Lewis, Robert Lewis , Erwin Lutzer, Richard L. Mayhue, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., J. P. Moreland , Joel Nederhood, J. Stanley Oakes, Stephen Olford, J. I. Packer, Dorothy Patterson, Paige Patterson, Dennis Rainey, Pat Robertson, Adrian Rogers, Paul Sailhamer, Robert Saucy, Jerry Vines, John Walvoord, Bruce Ware, Stu Weber, William Weinrich, David Wells, John Wimber

Resolutions opposing �gender-inclusive� Bible translations were also passed in the summer of 1997 by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Churches.

------------

Poster�s End Notes:

1. Among our Christian brethren of the Evangelical and other Protestant Churches there are whole ministries dedicated to maintaining accuracy in translations of the Holy Scriptures. I thank Chris Cowan of www.cbmw.org [cbmw.org] for his kind permission to repost this article. There is also solid information on this subject at www.genderneutralbibles.com [genderneutralbibles.com] .

2. This article was originally written in 1997. It is the first of numerous articles by the author. I posted it because it speaks directly to the issue of accurate translations that we have been discussing. There are certainly other articles that we can discuss as well.

3. The examples the author lists in section "D" can still be easily duplicated. In one 15 minute segment the local radio news channel "WTOP-AM" here in Washington, DC, had news stories that included Senator Obama, one of the candidates for president, who quoted the Declaration of Independence "all men are created equal" and used the term "mankind" in his talk; about the "Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman" speaking to the issue of illegal immigration, and a "Man About Town" interview in which a woman was subject of the interview.

www.cbmw.org [cbmw.org] (Reposted here with permission) | Link to original article [cbmw.org] If you wish to print you will get a better paper copy from the original website.

Excellent article.

I read this in it: "Resolutions opposing �gender-inclusive� Bible translations were also passed in the summer of 1997 by the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the Conservative Congregational Christian Churches." God bless them! The Byzantine Catholic church and its leaders cannot be trusted with the Sacred Scriptures because they will alter it for the sake of feminist theology.

This little observation brings me to this article, �How Inclusive Language Came to the Liturgy: ICEL's Strategies for "Shaping English Liturgy"", enlightening. It explains why there really is no answer why the Byzantine Catholic Church adopted inclusive language in its worship. Its justification was similar to the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy).

Here are a few snip-its:

======================================

Dr. Henderson avers that ICEL's 1975 statement of commitment to the use of "inclusive language" became "the benchmark of all further ICEL work on liturgical texts". He remarks that neither the origins of the 1975 statement, nor the discussions which surrounded the adoption of this "benchmark" by the ICEL Administrative Committee, have been preserved for the record. He adds, significantly: "It is of interest that this commitment to the use of inclusive language preceded precise definition of the issue, extensive study of principles, analysis of texts, or formulation of possible courses of action".

In other words, the ICEL experts adopted "inclusive language" essentially because they wanted to. Apparently, they did not see any need of definition, study, analysis, or other work which would justify their opinions. They knew what they wanted; feminist ideology alone provided the rationale. Study and analysis came later -- and predictably reached the desired conclusion that "inclusive language" in the liturgy was necessary and proper.

That this ICEL commitment to inclusive language was based on feminist ideology alone, and not on any real and verifiable changes in English usage, is indicated by subsequent ICEL statements Henderson quotes, statements made in connection with ICEL's study of the question after the fact.

======================================

It has been claimed that "inclusive language" must be enforced as a simple matter of justice for women. But the idea of "inclusive language" is a highly artificial construct which has been consistently and systematically promoted by an organized ideological movement for the past thirty years. Feminism has proved to be very strong in secular society, of course, where no Gospel truths stand in the way of its adoption.

How feminism can be thought compatible with a Church that appeals to the Gospel, however, is one of those contemporary mysteries that has not yet found a satisfactory explanation. Ideological feminism consciously reduces human relationships to power relationships; the feminists in the Church make no bones about wanting the "power" which they believe bishops and the priests unfairly possess; yet it often seems to be the bishops and the priests who seem least critical of the hostility that is nevertheless directed squarely towards them and their functions in the Church.

from: http://www.adoremus.org/98-04_whitehead.htm

======================================

So, there you have it. No textual, critical, theological or linguistic study was done with the RDL because the RDL translators just simply wanted it. Ta Da! This is why celibate clergy need to get married so they can understand human relationships better instead of looking at it only as a power struggle. Every married man knows that the woman in the relationship has the real power. His power is merely token in nature. But, it is not married men who have the authority to shape liturgical language and preserve the integrity of Holy Writ. THAT authority is in a totally different culture.

That was a useful article, Administrator; thank you for posting it.

-- John

Very good article, but I think it doesn't address the problems of wife beating, slavery, child exploitation, keeping women in their place and overall, just plain old discrimination that are caused by the use of he, him, man and so forth in organized religion.

Surely, we can go the route of "mush" as one of the scholars indicated for the sake of women and children?

(And yes, all that was sarcasm.)

I've read somewhere that one language that has eliminated gender in language entirely, having no gender forms even for personal pronouns, is modern Persian as spoken in Iran; makes one think about cause and effect.

Dn. Anthony

IAN:

You're not saying that the use of pronouns is the cause of wife beating, are you?

The Romans had what was termed the "paterfamilias law" in the time of Christ. Essentially it meant that a householder (man) could lawfully kill any member of his afmily and any slave as long as he did it within the confines of his own home. So I think from this one cultural example we can see from history taht the use of "he, him, and man" is not necessarily the cause of wife beating or other abuse in the home.

BOB

Pater familias was also in the OT if memory serves.

No, I was only anticipating the claims of some...

I think we could solve all the language problems by going back to Old Slavonic/Greek/Latin, depending on the rite in question.

It's clear: each language has its own "genius", its own way of dividing the visible world.

Hebrew sees 'masculine' and 'feminine'. Greek and Latin have masculine-feminine and ne-utrum (neither). So do the Germanic languages, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, etc.

If there is a question of God's interaction with human beings, we need to make use of the people's language to express the reality. (Pater-familias is a classical Roman/Latin term; the term is really unknown in Hebrew or Greek. It comes from the "Rome" world view.)

The question for English speakers is this: do we specify "man and woman", "male and female" "he or she" or do we go to the non-specified "they-them" (English plurals don't divide by gender. German and Dutch don't either.). While the "he or she" "him or her" sounds awkward in a text, it represents the actual meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek texts as referring to "people". As a linguist by training and degrees, I find it hard to understand why there is such an uproar about this issue. We have many circumlocutions, including the use of the plurals "they/them" or "person/persons" or "people" (generic plural) for inclusion in translations. Or even the incredibly scientific "humans" or "human beings".

Translating "phil-anthropia" in the litanies, should be "lover of anthropos", but this refers to "people with souls". "Mankind" is a traditional English word, but it really should refer to baptizable human beings, boy-chiks, and girl-chiks to use the Ukrainian!!

To be honest, the contemporary American English, non-gender term is "guys" or "folks". As in a meeting, one can say: "Alright, all you guys have got to ....." Or: "All the folks that we need to contact...."

But these terms don't carry the "dignity" that we want in liturgical language. (Maybe in a 100 years!!). But to intone: "For the Lord is gracious and loves all you guys" doesn't quite cut it. Maybe when our great grandkids are at Liturgy, it will work, but for now --- "forget about it" (fuhgettaboutit) just sounds like the Jersey Sopranos.

Going to OCS, Latin or Greek is just not in the cards. Using 'cant' words (words that we have gotten from another language without knowing their real meaning) is just irrational. (I've heard Latiniaks addressing another with "Dominus Vobiscum" without realizing that 'vobiscum' is plural in Latin and implies the recipient is either schizophrenic or morbidly obese. The "missal" renders "Dominus vobiscum" as: "The Lord be with you" without making it clear that its meaning is "Y'all" = plural folks.) One actually needs to STUDY a language before using it. But for many folks, it's just too much an effort. It's more important to demand the use of the 'classical' languages for "tradition's sake", even though the proponents have no clue about the language itself. No wonder we Christians are made to look incredibly stupid when this stuff occurs.

I am recalled of a Franciscan convent where the horarium (office of the hours) included the words: "Non dicitur: Gloria Patri et filio..." which says: "The Glory to the Father and the Son.. is not said." And the good Sisters just sang the rubric "it is not said" along with the "Glory to the Father and the Son..." Good old Latin!! This is NOT prayer; it's 'cant'. Much better for these Sisters who ran a hospital that ministered to children with cancer to use English. (They were wonderful women - true jewels in the crown of the Church; they rotated out after 2 years because of the stress and depression that would afflict them as a result of their work. Saints!! Without a question!)

We must be aware that the Gospel is a message. It is a message that MUST come to every human being born onto earth. It is a message that invites the person to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to live his or her life according to the message. This WON'T happen if we envelop the message in strange language - whether English or another - that obscures the message.

It's nice to be 'traditional' or 'historical', but the real challenge of the Gospel is to go out there and get 'em. And, as St. Paul says, it means going in their doors to bring them out of ours. It means going out to the "highways and byways" to the streets and the alleys, and letting people know that Christians actually care about them and their lives. And that we'll be there as they move forward.

This is what ALL the great saints have done, oftentimes much to the consternation of the ecclesiastical institutions. "Lepers? are you crazy?" "Indian outcastes? Are you nuts?" "African negroes? They don't have souls - why bother?" "Canadian Iriquois natives? They're savages - kill them off!" "AIDS victims? They brought it on themselves!" "The underclass and the poor? They're too stupid to make it in the contemporary world?" "Jews? They killed Christ, kill 'em off and let them rot."

Where does it stop?

Our Christian forebears went to the lions because their faith in the Lord told them that all of the just would be given salvation with the Lord in a place of "refreshment, light and peace". And "just" means love of God, and love of one's neighbor as caring for one's self.

How can we expect to come to the Lord's place of "refreshment, light and peace" if we do not live according to His commandments?

We need to back off; and we need to assess what our obligation is going to be to ALL of our human brethren, and follow through on what we need to do.

May the Lord bless all of us with the Wisdom we need to follow His commands!

Dr John

Dr. John--

The problem that I have with the current translation "philanthropos" from the RDL is not so much the inclusive language, but the fact that:

1) "and loves us all" is just plain awkward and lacks dignity (both for us and for Christ),

2) the phrase "philanthropos," translated as "Lover of Mankind," actually has become a title for Christ, that in one fell swoop of the pen has been relegated to the dust bins of history by committee.

Lest I sound too dramatic, think about it. As subsequent generations (if there are any) don't hear that phrase and boom! that title, it's gone.

John K. (one of us all)

The whole point of the translation as "Man" or "Mankind" is that it is comprehensive even beyond "baptizable human beings, boy-chiks, and girl-chiks" and more precise than "ALL of our human brethren," and "us all."

Dn. Anthony

This was quite funny! (And I had 2 1/2 years of Latin at uni, so I knew what was coming!) However, my experience as a convert from a low Protestant tradition, who was also exposed to a "pure" Latin Novus Ordo every day in college, is that liturgical languages are in fact not difficult to pick up among the laity. They are far simpler than say, reading Cicero or some comparable Greek equivalent. Plus, Latin and Greek are both very precise languages and are immune to corruptions.

A December, 2007, article appeared in the Jesuit publication, written by a self-described progressive Jesuit. He had been asked to offer the extraordinary form of the Roman rite by his parishioners, and being a good pastor, he obliged them even though he wasn't crazy about the idea.

Here's a quote:

Another great line:


I've a subscription to the online edition; if you get a chance, I'd urge reading it.

Dr. John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You assume that the English "man" and its related forms and compounds ("mankind," etc.) are gendered / gender-specific terms, denoting only "male human beings." This is a startling assumption for a linguist who, I presume, has studied the English language. I would expect you to know that man historically has done double-duty in our common tongue. In fact, "man" as gender-inclusive is the oldest usage. (The OE and ME word for "male human being" was "wer," as in "werewolf.")

I would also point out that it is not correct to say that �anthropos� in Greek is sexless or gender-inclusive. It sometimes is, referring (particularly in the plural) to all human beings, male and female. But it also commonly refers to male human beings (see, e.g., Matt. 19.5, 19.10; and 1 Cor. 7.1).

So the truth is, the ambiguity of �man� reflects the ambiguity of �anthropos.�

I would go a bit farther and argue that such usage actually points us to a deeper truth about human creatures: that men (as in male human beings) exercise a headship over the entire creation, that patriarchy (rightly understood and exercised in love) is a biblical norm.

In Christ,
Theophilos

"Man" is actually a combination of a German word for "male" and the Latin word for "hand," and, in its original usage in the language that became modern English was basically, "worker."

I hear the various points of view that are being posted.

The real question is not where the term "man" was historically (the info about "wer" is new to me - thanks!!) but where the usage is now.

In a police report or on MadTV's Swan "he looked like a man", the general use of "man" in contemporary American English means: a male. There is no question that historically, terms like "mankind" or "man" referred to the human race in general as well as denoting males and Theophilus' point is well taken. But contemporary American usage (outside of churchy language) usually indicates a male of the species. (Linguistics is not prescriptive - it's only descriptive of what current usage is. We analyze large bodies of written and spoken texts to provide the basis for the "description" and let people know how people use language.) So, relying upon historical usage may well demonstrate historical reality, but for contemporary usage use of the term may transmit a message that is not intended. (I always think of the terms "fear of the Lord". In the olden days, "fear" meant "high respect" for someone/thing. Today it means armpit sweat and elevated blood pressure. We need to have "highest respect" for the Lord, not sweaty armpit hypertension. Similar with "awful Majesty of God" where the olden-days "awful" meant our contemporary "awesome". Keeping the olden-days term sends the wrong message to contemporary listeners.) Language use changes and evolves.

Of course, the whole issue gets really complicated when translating from one language to another. Since both languages are in constant 'flux', there is a constantly evolving calculus of semantic correlations. While it is true that the dead languages don't evolve much anymore (!!), rendering their meaning from within their context of pagan gods and world-view, is still not an easy task.

I must admit that I'm confused by Deacon Anthony's statement: "it [man/mankind] is comprehensive even beyond "baptizable human beings, boy-chiks, and girl-chiks" and more precise than "ALL of our human brethren," and "us all." I don't get this at all. "Us all" sounds pretty comprehensive to me, as does "ALL of our human brethren".

Theophilos makes good points about language, but they are all "historical". If we are dealing with 'language', then we are dealing with how living people use the 'language' now. Otherwise, it's historical philology. Interesting to read, but not quite relevant to our contemporary situation.

I think that some people have the equivalent of an "axe to grind" about the roles of males and females in theology and in the church, and their perspective on language use reflects their theology/ecclesiology perspective rather than linguistic reality.

The solution appears to be to allow writers, linguists and poets to have a crack at rendering contemporary language that reflects the reality of current usage and make it "pretty" at the same time. Apart from the "don't change anything at all" folks, this would seem to satisfy the real need of good language (like Elizabethan English was in its day for the Protestants) while ensuring the accuracy of the concepts being communicated theologically. No offense, but I don't think choosing a committee of clergy is necessarily the best way to go.

There are ways of changing clause and phrase structure that obviate the use of gender-specific nouns and allow adjectives to serve as "head-phrases". For example: "blessed is the man who follows not the counsel of the ungodly" can be metathesized to: "Whoever does not follow the counsel of the ungodly is blessed!" Same meaning, different clause structure.

PS: Sultan, is the reference to the Jesuit magazine: America? The citations are very insightful, but I might suggest that the celebrant's experience arises more from his personal spirituality (and that of the congregation) than from the actual form of the liturgy itself. I've attended and served at thousands of the old Latin Masses before the change and I must admit that it was oftentimes a rote recitation of the words in a sort of sing-song cadence. Many of the priests were not that 'literate' in Latin and for many parts of the Mass they just plowed through without any regard to the 'phrasing' that would indicate comprehension. (I remember a minor revolt in the Boston Archdiocese when the priests were reminded that the text was: "Agnus Dei" (=an-yus day-ee) and not the usual: Agnes Day. Nice Irish lady that she was!!)

I hope that the Church will be aware of the need to provide accurate and "pretty/artistic" language for the use of God's people at worship.

Blessings to all!

Dr John

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

Forgive me, Dr. John, but you have made my point for me. If "most non educated Christians haven't a clue about this." then this is precisely what needs to be held onto by what some may consider stilted language or "traditionalistic" or what-have-you. The liturgy instructs when done properly. By changing translations left and right, one should be asking what is being lost for the sake of dumbing down to the (now dumbed down) people.

"So, as with our younger kids, is this really something I need to focus on?" Clearly, if they don't understand the meaning behind "And with your spirit", this is PRECISELY what needs work being a truth of the faith which is passed on to us.

This is the crux of the matter: does the liturgical translation accurately and faithfully present the traditions which have been taught to us? Many people feel that the switch to increased use of gender neutral language (such as in the Creed viz Rome's ruling or other aspects of the first ICEL translation of the Latin Rite Mass) does not do so.

It's all fine and good to assert that gender neutrality (and lack thereof) are mere political ideologies. If this is the case then I can see why it shouldn't matter since the sex/gender in the language is a mere cultural construct. The problem is the Church asserts in a number of instances that sex/gender has meaning (and the language surrounding sex) beyond a political ideology. If this is the case then it transcends any modern (or ancient) language and something about it must be observed as part of the (big T) Tradition passed on to us since God is teaching us something about ourselves and Himself. Until BOTH sides can discuss the various changes made to the liturgy (and scripture) with an understanding of the roles of sex/gender, the conversation (i.e. this conversation) won't get much further than assertions that all this is meaningless argumentation because gender/sex is a political ideology.

I agree with your point about "the crux of the matter". The verbiage used in liturgical language MUST be accompanied by good catechesis and sermonizing. The "and with your spirit" comes immediately to mind. If this is not explained to the community, we end up with seriously fractured understanding of the liturgy. And this involves study - which we are too reluctant to do. We have "School of Religion" for the kids. What about the adults?

And too often, the time commitment to religious education excludes many who have the study and education to accomplish this in the congregation/parish. And so we end up with the "Hallmark" religious folks or the Maria Schrivers who write books about heaven being our sitting on clouds, etc. The Ruthenian metropolia has a cantors' institute; what we really also need is a well grounded educators' institute with solid textbooks and perhaps internet coursework that is more than a series of mini-workshops.

The cultural issues are extremely important - including attitudes about gender and sex - but these don't generally make it into the discussions. We spend a lot of time on icons and the lives of the saints, etc. and these are absolutely critical for our community. But other aspects are not included and this leads to a skewed perspective in the education of our people (including 'borrowings' from the Latin and Western communities).

With specific regard to 'gender' issues, we do indeed need to respect Tradition (with the big "T"), but we need to make sure that we don't confuse Tradition with 'traditions' which can provide some folks with a rationalization that any emendation is per se 'evil' and 'sinful'. Change is part of the cosmos; both we and the world around us are constantly changing and to ignore this reality puts the Church in danger of becoming something static and after a time - archaic. We are not Amish. (Except for the black clothing!)

Unfortunately, as Mike J points out, the conversation about gender/sex is potentially part of a political ideology. And there are those who stake their positions on a more political ideology and ignore the theological foundations. And this leads to strife - which we Christians aren't supposed to engage in.

Questions about the roles of men and women in the Church community should be developing and ongoing, and we should - in my opinion - be making use of everyone's talents to further the message of the Gospel. So we have to find the people, uncover their talents and integrate them into the missionizing of the Church. (Who'd have thought 40 years ago that nuns would be Chancery officials for dioceses?) But it has happened - and good things have resulted. We need to continue to pursue this effort because in the face of the non-Christian - and even anti-Christian onslaught, we need all the troops we can muster to present the Gospel's teachings.

I am just concerned that the 'traditionalist' perspective will relegate the women in the Church to roles that don't take into account their talents and zeal. And their graces and talents will be lost to us if we just willy-nilly relegate women to historically pre-defined and ancillary roles. Corporeal plumbing isn't destiny. It's just plumbing.

If a woman is "golden-tongue" like "Chrysostom", then open the door to her teaching/preaching/internet'ing/DVDing and rejoice that she's a gospel-preaching Christian and not some Wall Street hack. The seculars make use of everyone who furthers their goals (financial, marketing or whatever) so why should we be hamstrung? "Zeal for the Apostolate" should be our guiding principle. And if we can't use gender-neutral language where possible to ensure that all God's children get the message of 'inclusiveness', then we are just shooting ourselves in the foot once again for the sake of 'tradition' (little 't'). And Eastern Christianity in the U.S. will be little more than a footnote in the ethnic history of the nation.

With Blessings to All!

Dr John

This wasn't really my point there. My point was that many people feel that using gender neutrality does not faithfully translate the liturgy. The focus has been on cultural norms and adjusting to them, not on any arguments of substance indicating an understanding of gender beyond what our culture (a very short lived culture at that) says it is.

As for how and when adults are to learn... I seem to recall a weekly event where the community gathers to be fed by the Word of God...

Besides, why do we assume that Christianity is convenient?


To a certain extent, this is true. In different ways, it's very not true. JP2's Theology of the Body indicates ways in which the feminine and masculine are the same and are crucially different in modern language. Similarly, there are reasons why the Church has no authority to make women priests. Some may call this "relegating women (AND men) to predefined roles", sure, but there are reasons behind it and until you or anyone else grapples with this deeper logic, all we have are cliches about exclusion/inclusion/"what modern people can hear" etc.



There is a certain focus here on the DOING as opposed to the being, which, in my understanding of how East and West are typically compared and contrasted, sounds far more Western than Eastern. Too much Martha and not enough Mary and if the council asked the East to be more Eastern, even this focus might be seen as a "latinization". Eastern Christians need to see that they exist, by and large, in a Western culture and (blindly) accepting how the secular (Western) culture does things is dangerous to the Eastern identity, in my opinion. As I suggest above, there may be elements of the language of sex/gender which are part of big T tradition and until one grapples with what that is it's all tearing down walls when you don't know why the wall was put there in the first place. Blindly (and this would be blind without that discussion) accepting the cultural norm (i.e. gender neutrality) does far more toward obliterating Christianity, grounding it into a powder to be absorbed in the culture, and making it into that footnote in my opinion than retaining language which, by the very fact that it's different or archaic sounding in the modern ear, attracts attention and promotes thought on the truths contained within it.

I re-iterate: Until translators indicate that they understand how and why gender/sex exist, compliment, compare and contrast, and how it's used in scripture and Tradition (i.e. Liturgy) movement toward gender neutrality in language is the blind (our culture) leading the blind (us if we don't see those reasons either).

Peace,
Mike J.

Christ is Risen!!

I hear your points and I think that I understand them, but I suspect that there is a fundamental difference of understanding about the role of the liturgy and the role of the members of the community.

At one point you write:

"many people feel that using gender neutrality does not faithfully translate the liturgy. The focus has been on cultural norms and adjusting to them, not on any arguments of substance indicating an understanding of gender beyond what our culture (a very short lived culture at that) says it is."

That's the problem. Our (legitimate) Christian liturgies have gone through many iterations since the Lord's Paschal Meal. The 'Apostolic Constitutions' devolved through Hippolytus and through the various Greek/Syrian/Coptic/Aramaic and Latin versions. The Scripture itself is immutable, but - of course - interpretable with prayer, study and grace.

The liturgy, however, as its name implies "laos ergeizei" (=the people act) must be an ongoing celebration - organically developing from its previous formulation of the people's worship. Updating is not just a possibility, but a necessity that responds to the realities of the worshipping community.

Although the "older version" of the Byzantine liturgy has the deacon command: "Guard the doors" to keep out the unbaptized, perhaps the deacons today should have an injunction at the beginning of the liturgy to command: "Shut off the cell phones! Silence the beepers! Let us be totally attentive!!"

The Liturgy cannot be immutable. And to insist on having an understanding of the liturgy as of XYZ year, and imposing that on the current community isn't evangelization but anachronism.

"As for how and when adults are to learn... I seem to recall a weekly event where the community gathers to be fed by the Word of God..."

Agreed, but when the words don't adequately mirror the Gospel message, then there's a problem. If, for an example, the ENTIRE liturgy were silent except for the words of consecration and the epiclesis, would it be "legitimate"?

No litanies, no readings, no psalms, no 'prayers', no hymns, no blessings. Just the Lord's commanded words of institution, and the priest's prayer to the Holy Spirit to ratify what he has accomplished. That's the essence of the eucharistic celebration. (It's a bad idea since it would not be an organic development of the peoples' practices - the liturgy is there for the people!) Satisfying? Probably not. Legitimate? I think so since this constitutes the Lord's specific verbal command: "Take, eat, ..... Drink of this all of you.... Do this in memory of me..."

So, insisting on accurate and adequate 'translations' misses the mark. That only ensures adherence to past practice.

(Let's not even consider the Christians of the Near/Middle East offering liturgical/psalm prayers for Zion's conquest of others... in light of the current political situation. Makes my flesh crawl.)

Blessings to All

Dr John

And this is the key point. Organic development is not something that is promulgated, mandated, and then shoved down the people's throats.

My concerns is always with the Biblical references from which Liturgical prayers and petitions are taken.

For example, take Psalm 1, which is chanted at every Great Vespers.

Gender neutral translations will sometimes say "Happy are those who avoid the ways..." etc, instead of "Blessed is the man..."

But in Greek (even in Hebrew, and even Latin I hear)the word is not anthropos, or any generic man in the world, it is aneros, a particular man. The remainder of Psalms 1,2,3 tell us that it is Christ being referred to.

Gender neutrality will often remove Christological references if the translator is not aware of them, or does not take typology seriously, which few do.

THAT is my concern about such things. They are better left alone.

For a good read, see Fr. Pat Reardon's article "The Latest Liturgical Monstrosity."

Prester John,
A general excellent source for comparing texts and translations is to be found at: www.blueletterbible.com [blueletterbible.com]
My only gripe with the site is that it doesn't include the vowel pointing on the Hebrew.

As to your issue with Psalm 1: the Hebrew uses "ish" indicating man, male though mankind is within the semantic range of the word. There is a feminine version of this word "ish-ah". This, however, is an interesting point that John Paul II raised in the theology of the body: that this word, "ish", is not used in the Genesis narrative until after God creates Eve. Before that, it is simply "adam" (a man/person) for which, to my knowledge, there is no feminine version. If I were translating the original Hebrew, I'd use "man"... but then I have no problem with the grammar rules I learned in grade school.

I also think JP2 was on to something with his TotB which placed importance on the complementarity of the sexes and the symbolism of their roles. I'd sooner retain the grammar of my childhood (which really was only 2 decades ago!) and be free to examine that complementarity than be forced to learn Hebrew and Greek to see what was REALLY passed onto the Church as opposed to some banal and ideologically purified version...

The only iota I know of Greek is that they tend to be very important in the middle of big words found in the Creed.

This was beautifully said -- if we don't spread the word and communicate the Gospel to those on the outside then we will gradually fade away.

As a woman, you know what I think? The Byzantine Catholic Church is OVER ESTIMATING the power of inclusive language. It will not save our church. The only thing that will save our church is evangelization. Until we get that right, tinkering with a few words will amount to a hill of beans.

I for one, did not feel excluded with the use of the word mankind. And I know I'm not unique in that regard.

Ditto to everything Stephanie said!

We do not need gender neutralized language to reach "those on the outside".

Amen!

Just to confirm what you have heard about the Latin: vir is the word used in Ps 1, which is essentially the same as Greek aner. "Beatus vir, qui..." (Blessed the man, who...).

And in Ps 3, 2, the same circumlocution cannot be used: Non est salus ipsi in Deo" (RSV: "there is no help for him in God"). [In fact, the dative singular of ipse has only one form: ipsi.]

The ends don't justify the means.

The whole Creed, without an iota missing, is what needs to be on the inside of the Church and presented to those on the "outside." The faith gives us the fullness of truth and it has the effect of restoring man's nature which is now joined to the Divine nature in Christ. One of the great consequences of being faithful to the Greek text, would not only have been a certain restoration of the philosophy of man, but a good lesson to youngsters on the proper use of the English language!

With all due respect, I can see nothing in the Scriptures or in the Holy Canons or in Holy Tradition that would indicate this is a duty to which God has called His church. We are to proclaim the Gospel -- let us leave instruction in "the proper use of the English language" to academics. The Church has not been called by God to teach English -- she is to proclaim the Gospel.

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

No. I understand.
No. A small minority commission with an agenda decided to gender neutralize the Divine Liturgy and it was forced on the people. That was the crux of my disappointment.
I can assure you it is also the language/translations. You seem to imply that the laity have an ego issue. But I say that the Roman Catholic Church has shown us the example of what can happen when political correctness (ie; gender neutralization) infects the Church--and it was unfathomable that the Ruthenian Catholic Church copied their example.
I believe you are mistaken.
Absolutely. And gender neutralized language would have no part of the equation.

People will tend to rebel a bit when non-organic changes in the Divine Liturgy are jammed down their throats.
Very sad indeed.
I have often seen, (by members of this forum), the justification for gender neutralized language as a response to the oppression of women. This oppression is often compared to the era of slavery and discrimination. As opposed as I am to discrimination of any kind, I do not believe for one second that the pre-RDL had discriminatory or offensive language.

But what I see now is quite offensive and insulting to men and women.

God bless you

R

Yes, which would not have to include inclusive language. Things like internet radio, webinars, blogs....etc. We might actually get somewhere with some of this technology.

But, the people in the so-called ivory tower have to come down off the throne and admit they haven't a clue as to how this all works, and could someone from the laity please explain this to them. That's an internal shift we, sadly, have not yet reached. I hope we will in my lifetime!

With all these words, I fail to see what actually justified gender neutralization in Scripture and the liturgy.

At one point, the poor laity and these huddled masses of humanity outside the church, could not be expected to understand that "mankind" could possibly include women. More recently the laity are so well educated in the pews that they've apparently been educated beyond basic usage of the English language that the same linguistic subtlety is lost to their ears. I wonder that I'm the only one confused by that one.

perhaps one and the same problem exists between both groups: wholesale acceptance of the prevailing secular value system - a system the Church is to instruct and transform. And if the Church can't ask a people to open their minds to the once standard grammar of their own mother tongue I wonder how the she can expect them to swallow something as difficult and foreign as the Kingdom of God.

No one is getting evangelized if everyone's afraid they might actually be "salt" for the earth and provide something other than the bland same-old worldview that's so prevalent.

Regards,
Mike J.

I get the feeling that folks are being very emotional about liturgical changes, and that the gender-neutral renderings are becoming the whipping-boy for a broader range of discontent.

As someone older, what amazes me is the fact that lay people are venting on this in public. Under the "old" canon law (1923) that I grew up with, no one without a pontifical degree in theology could express a public opinion on church matters that were reserved to the bishop without the 'nihil obstat' and the 'imprimatur' if it were printed on paper. The person was interdicted, forbidden the sacraments, and 'cut off' until the bishop reversed the interdict.

With the current liturgical 'changes', under the old system one did not have the right to do or say anything except talking with the pastor or writing to the bishop.

As Stephanie notes, we now have a multitude of ways of communicating, from web-pages, to blogs, to e-mail blasts, etc. to express alternative views. (But I think the rule about 'printed' books still obtains.) How many 'traditionalists' would be willing to go back to this kow-towing that is reminiscent of monarchical/royal Western European mindset?

I think accusing the proposers of changes that they believe layfolks are too benighted to understand that "mankind" applies to women also, as well as the idea that people in the pews have been "educated beyond basic usage of the English language that the same linguistic subtlety is lost to their ears" is a real insult. That's clearly not the issue. English speakers know that "thou" and "thee" are singular 2nd person pronouns (subjecive and objective case usage) refering to "you" singular. ("You" was originally plural only.) Be we don't use them anymore - not since the 18th century. Nor should we try to re-instate them. It ain't gonna happen.

The issue is: loving care for everyone - and if that includes changing language or customs, then so be it.

Let me make a parable: I can tell my spouse, mother, Grandma, etc. that I love her. Fine. But if, when she comes home, the laundry is done or the vacuuming is done, or there are some flowers by her place at the dining room table, I've said more than just "I love you". Or if a woman comes in and has some snacks for the man and his friends on game day, or gets him something from Home Depot that he wants, or gets some massage oil or Icy-Hot to squeeze out the tightened muscles in the shoulders, it's more than just "I love you". It's the extra step. Same with using 'both-gender' terms. It's a way of saying not just: "I love you", but the little extra. Screaming feminism of the 60s aside (most of them are dead), doing something extra to tell women that they ARE the Church seems just like the right thing to do. Like the laundry, but more lasting!

If it's good enough for the home, it's good enough for the Church. And I don't think God would mind our going the extra step. Finding new ways to tell people: "I really love you" seems to be following in Christ's footsteps.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

There is not a flock of sheep in the world that would follow even the best shepherd over a cliff and into the abyss. Such legalistic interpretations of episcopal/laity relations is a relatively new innovation, and is quite foreign to the Eastern perspective. One merely has to look at the actions of the laity in regards to the infamous Council of Florence. It was the laity, and one (1) bishop alone, St Mark of Ephesus, that saved the Church. The same thing can be said for the laity at the time of the forced imposition of liturgical reforms by Patriarch Nikon. Many chose martyrdom over the defiling of the Faith. And to many of us, what we see in so-called "gender-neutral" language, is nothing more than the defiling of the faith. Some, in their naivety may see something good. But to those who have been around, it is nothing less than the icy claw of satan come in the form of an attack from the "right hand".

Alexandr

From the time of the early Middle Ages in the West, when �vox populi, vox Dei� was in vogue, there has been an inexorable and constant push towards hierarchization of the Church. Bishops also became �princes of the Church� in the old countries with monarchies; and they thought they were princes in places where there was no royalty. And they governed the people with this mindset.

This is not a relatively new innovation. Nor is it new in the East. Early councils of bishops compiled a boatload of canons for church governance. �The Rudder� was not compiled some Sunday afternoon when a monk had nothing else to do. And the strictures placed upon the people were many, and the release from them came from the bishop and the bishop alone.

The main point in the above post seems to reference �defiling the Faith�. The question is: who gets to define the faith? In one view, it is the synod/council of bishops; in another view, it is the bishops along with the faithful. And when there is conflict, how should it be resolved? Each side obviously has its own answer.

Some saw 1918 European Russians leaving the jurisdiction of Moscow for political reasons as a defiling of the faith by ignoring the canons; some Easterners saw leaving communion with the See of Peter for political reasons as a defilement of the Faith; others saw the introduction of the vernacular in a given area as a defilement; others saw the mandate of celibacy for diocesan clergy as a defilement, while others saw a married clergy as an abomination against centuries of legitimate church discipline. Some see women changing altar linens as a defilement, while others see it as perfectly appropriate �diakonia�. Some see waiting for the Jews to celebrate Passover before having Pascha as a defilement of the faith and a violation of the canons, others see it as �appropriate� to acknowledge the Jews.

It all depends on who is doing the definition of �the Faith�. And it also depends on what one means by �the Faith�. There is general agreement that the Creeds and the canon of Scripture are the essentials of �the Faith', and pretty much set in stone.

But how far down the chain of beliefs and customs can one legitimately go without going outside the legitimate Faith and degenerating into archaism? (There were serious disagreements in the East about the legitimacy of using electric lights in church. Even in the U.S. Is it OK to use an electric hot-plate to heat the teplota, or does it have to be a flame? And what about pilgrimage/shrine churches that draw hundreds or thousands of pilgrims: do we have to use candles or can we use those little electric �candle-lights� to avoid carbonizing the icons on the walls? Does the bishop�s rug-let have to be lambs-wool, or can it be easily laundered polyester?) After a while, this can lead to spats and schisms � and madness.

As for gender-neutral language being: �the icy claw of satan come in the form of an attack from the "right hand", this is just totally out of proportion. It sounds more like something out of �World of Warcraft� or some demonic video game than the Gospel of Christ.

Demonizing something in order to get people to reject it may seem artful, and may work with some benighted folks, but when it is examined in rational discourse, the trick is revealed. And to suggest, without providing any supporting evidence, that other people are �na�ve� if they disagree with the presenter�s determination is, in many ways, both unchristian and insulting.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Dear John,

What you say in regards to the hierarchization of the West, is in some part, true. However, this is not and was not the case in the East. Even with the imperial courts of both Russia and Byzantium, the episcopacy were not regarded as princes. I can only speak of first hand knowledge of the Slavic tradition. But our bishops, although the arbitrators of the faith, are not the keepers of the faith. That role belongs to the laity, the Church corporeal. In the Slavic tradition, bishops are referred to as "Vladika", an endearing term for master, implying a loving father never as "Gosudar" or "Knaz".

As it is the beginning of Holy Week, I have not the time to go into a lengthy discourse. But might I suggest that you look into the concept of Sobornost. A good source is Khomiakov's "The Church Is One". http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_is_one_e.htm

Vladimir Lossky, in "The Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church" writes:
The catholicity of the Church, far from being the privilege of any one see or specific centre, is realized rather in the richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth: to that which is preserved always, everywhere and by all. Since the Church is catholic in all her parts, each one of her members�not only the clergy but also each layman�is called to confess and to defend the truth of tradition; opposing even the bishops should they fall into heresy. A Christian who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of the Holy Chrism must have a full awareness of his faith: he is always responsible for the Church. Hence the restless and sometimes agitated character of the ecclesiastical life of Byzantium, of Russia and of other countries in the Orthodox world. This, however, is the price paid for a religious vitality, an intensity of spiritual life which penetrates the whole mass of believers, united in the awareness that they form a single body with the hierarchy of the Church.

St. John of Damascus: "Let us be firm, my brothers, on the rock of faith, in the tradition of the Church, and not remove or change the boundaries established by our Holy Fathers. Let us close the road to innovators and not permit them to demolish the structure of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God. If we allow, however, the introduction of any innovation, we unconsciously support the collapse of the Church. No, my brothers, you who love Christ, no, you children of the Church, you will never want to surround your Mother Church with confusion." (Concerning Images III.41)

St. Photios the Great: "In matters of the Faith even a small deviation is a sin that leads to death" (Epistle II, "To Pope Nicholas I"); and "for even a slight disregard for traditions is wont to lead to complete contempt for dogma" (Epistle XIII, "Encyclical to the Archiepiscopal Thrones of the East").

St. Augustine: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish."

As to your comments on "World of Warcraft", I have no clue as to what you are speaking of. But, to dismiss the attacks of the evil one on Christ's Church as some sort of trick, all Christians should find both unChristian and insulting.

Alexandr

Indeed, many insulting things have been said in this forum thread. But when I read comments discussing how we need to use language that "the ordinary folk at the mall use and understand" and also see comments that the waaaaaaaaay educated lay faithful should have input to disagree... well, forgive me if that doesn't sound like trying to have it both ways.

In reminding myself of what it was that was said I wonder that an important distinction is not being made between what one speaks at the mall and what one speaks at the liturgy. But more to the point is what I said above: there are no examples (in this thread at least) of substantive arguments *for* gender neutralization in the liturgy. The only arguments offered involve the fluffy feelings of love and openness. Well, if fluffy feelings and happy thoughts were the prime motive of Christ's incarnation to this earth, the Catholic Church would have declared all those doctrinal divisions between Christian brothers optional and we could all sing Kumbayah together. The fact of the matter is that love in not really love if it is not accompanied by truth (Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and God is Love - inseparable). So: what is the truth in this matter of gender?

Sadly, when I suggested that maybe we should really try and understand what it is that gender means in liturgy and language, it is dismissed as small t tradition. Oh really? What argument backs that up? Is the liturgy really gender neutral in all aspects? We do, after all, have language in scripture calling the Church a BRIDE and Christ the BRIDEGROOM. It's part of the basis of a male priesthood which is definitely an aspect of the liturgy. It's in Scripture and Tradition so that looks like a very large T to me. There hasn't been an attempt to probe these facts and discern what implications it could have on the rest of the language used. Nor has there been an attempt at discerning what *could* be meant by allowing femininity to be incorporated into the generic "man" term. Maybe that's complementarity at work with my masculinity being incorporated into a feminine Church? Or maybe it could be used to bring to mind the original solitude (again, read JP2's theology of the body) of the original Man ("adam") before God. Probably even more than is being listed in this paltry set of rhetorical suggestions.

What I'm suggesting is that the language of Scripture, Tradition and liturgy (which is part of big T tradition in many, though not all, aspects) - that this language should be treated more like an ICON. Instead, I see reductionism and atomism at work forcing precise and sterile "blessed is he or she who" sorts of ideas that remove all ambiguity, tension, and beautiful Mystery from something God has handed us because we, in our arrogance, think we can absorb it in one simple rendering if we can only get it right.

That I, a Western Christian by rite, am suggesting the Easterners use "icon" more broadly is quite baffling to me, but there it is. What is the world coming to? Avoid this latinization in language.

Peace and many prayers,
Mike J.

From the previous post of Slavipodvizhnik:

�But our bishops, although the arbitrators of the faith, are not the keepers of the faith. That role belongs to the laity, the Church corporeal. In the Slavic tradition, bishops are referred to as "Vladika", an endearing term for master, implying a loving father never as "Gosudar" or "Knaz".�

Sort of true; the East never went through the Empire Building in the way that the Western Church did. Although in the Byzantine court, the roles of the ecclesiastics were quite pronounced. But �master� and �loving father� are not, in my lexicon, equivalent.

Apropos Lossky, his comments refer to �heresy� as the quotation provides. His sense of �preservation� that is provided �everywhere and by all� refers to heretical understandings of the mysteries of salvation. It would apply to heretical ideas like Mary as the �co-mediatrix of salvation� when the church clearly teaches that Christ, and Christ alone, is responsible for our salvation. But for issues like crossing from right to left or from left to right, this is not an element of �the Faith� or of salvation. And I�m sure that Lossky would not condone schism as a result of a minor practice like this, although there are many who would consider this a call to arms.

He himself speaks of the �richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth�. And if a �local tradition� should decide to use �gender neutral� language where possible to ratify inclusiveness, then should the Church decide to cut these communities off and abnegate them, and condemn them to hell?

When dealing with translations from one language to another, there is no universal calculus for rendering. There can�t be because each language has its own genius. And language evolves over time. (The scriptural �awful� of the 17th century is �awesome� in the latter 20th and 21st centuries.)

And everybody, both episcopal, clerical and lay, has an obligation to defend the Church against heretical innovations. But, for �non de-fide� elements in defining the �Faith�, isn�t getting exorcised a hyper-reaction, and more in line with an ecclesiastical tantrum than a matter of �the Faith� as necessary for salvation?

You quote St. John of Damascene: �Let us be firm, my brothers, on the rock of faith, in the tradition of the Church, and not remove or change the boundaries established by our Holy Fathers. Let us close the road to innovators and not permit them to demolish the structure of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God. If we allow, however, the introduction of any innovation, we unconsciously support the collapse of the Church. No, my brothers, you who love Christ, no, you children of the Church, you will never want to surround your Mother Church with confusion." (Concerning Images III.41)

Our Holy Father among the Saints is referring here to a major element of whether �images� (and also symbols) should be allowed in the churches. Clearly, the Council stated that images were totally permissible � with the caveat that they are understood as �windows� to the other side, and NOT as objects of devotion themselves. That would be idolatry. (The opposite of the Islamics who won�t allow any type of �image� of Mohammed.)

Your quote from St. Photios the Great is most telling: "In matters of the Faith even a small deviation is a sin that leads to death" (Epistle II, "To Pope Nicholas I"); and "for even a slight disregard for traditions is wont to lead to complete contempt for dogma" (Epistle XIII, "Encyclical to the Archiepiscopal Thrones of the East").

He states �in matters OF THE FAITH�. This is a reference to both the Creed and to the practices of the sacraments. It does NOT involve anything lesser than this. Surely amending the Creed, or the central elements of the sacraments is a serious step. But rendering translations (a tedious and painstaking job!) does not rise anywhere near attempts to change the Creed or the root understanding of the sacraments. And to suggest that minor practices like left-to-right or right-to-left, or immersing vs. pouring water, or leavened vs. unleavened bread is absolutely essential to salvation is to go beyond the pale of the core elements of salvation.

Our Lord�s own words tell us that the Old Testament is fulfilled and that the new mandate is to love God and one�s neighbor. While preserving the core elements of the Creed(s) and the sacraments AS LIVING PRACTICES, we are to use the love God/love Neighbor as the touchstones for our lives. What is the point of instituting new criteria that parallel the Old Testament Torah and Talmud mandates? Are we going to banish Christians because they say �Blessed are they who�.� rather than �Blessed is the man who�.� Sounds like the Old Testament stuff that Christ Himself said was no longer viable.

We need to both READ and MEDITATE COLLECTIVELY on the Gospels to guide the church. And then pray that the Holy Spirit guide us collectively.

The Gospels are the �cake�; all the rest is just frosting that can be knifed off and replaced.

You note: �As to your comments on "World of Warcraft", I have no clue as to what you are speaking of.�

I�m astounded; Your profile says: �Third Rome�, whatever or wherever that may be. The church knows of �Old Rome� in Italy, and the �New Rome� where the Emperor (and the Church moved) in Byzantium. Third Rome? Doesn�t ecclesiastically or canonically exist. My suspicion is that you are an American because of your excellent English language style. That you are very computer literate is clear. So to be unaware of �World of Warcraft� and other internet phenomena strikes me as dissembling.

I don�t for a second dismiss �the attacks of the evil one on Christ's Church�, but I am aware and sincere enough to suspect when I am being scammed by someone who is most likely a very computer literate, adolescent or 20-something North American who has an axe to grind, who demonizes those who are opposed, is unwilling to actually stand up and be identified, and who is unwilling to DIRECTLY address issues both scripturally or canonically one by one without condemnation.

Have a fantastic Palm Sunday and a prayerful and penitential Holy/Great Week.

Dr John

Brother Mike J comments:

�Indeed, many insulting things have been said in this forum thread. But when I read comments discussing how we need to use language that "the ordinary folk at the mall use and understand" and also see comments that the waaaaaaaaay educated lay faithful should have input to disagree... well, forgive me if that doesn't sound like trying to have it both ways.�

In linguistics, a person is trained to analyze how language is used. It�s descriptive, not prescriptive. If a person is using language to transmit a certain idea, a linguist can say: �that corresponds to how the language is used in region X at time Y� or �no, that language doesn�t correspond to how the majority of people use the language�. It is up to the recipient of the information to decide whether to accept the information or not.

Mike�s statement: �what one speaks at the mall and what one speaks at the liturgy� can be an important distinction. As for examples, one must decide: use the language as the people use it now, OR decide to use some other (older) manifestation of the language. This is a choice. The language should be both contemporary and dignified - while I love Chaucer and Shakespeare, their idioms aren't going to work to communicate a Gospel message. And the language of the 'reality shows' isn't exactly an appropriate mode either. It will take real work.

The note: �the fluffy feelings of love and openness� is a subjective judgement. �Love and openness� seem to be the characteristics of Christ�s dealings with the people whom He met. Calling them �fluffy� is certainly a subjective perspective; and a backhanded condemnation of Christ�s �love� and �openness�, as �fluffy� seems to tell the Master what for!!

�The fact of the matter is that love in not really love if it is not accompanied by truth (Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and God is Love - inseparable)� Is this from the Scriptures, or a personal compilation/aggregation of texts?

There is no question that Christ referred to Himself as the Way, Truth and the Life. It appears to be a statement of His being the Messiah. But it is elsewhere in the Gospels that His teaching is brought forth: �This is the first and the greatest commandment �.love God� and the second commandment is love your neighbor as yourself, for this is the summation of the Torah and the Prophets.� Totally different context; totally different message; totally different pericope.

�What I'm suggesting is that the language of Scripture, Tradition and liturgy (which is part of big T tradition in many, though not all, aspects) - that this language should be treated more like an ICON.�

There is a problem here. Scripture stands by itself as a foundation of faith. Adding �Tradition� (either big or small t) is later Western theology, and is wrong � it isn�t even in the same ballpark as Scripture. Traditions certainly served to preserve the people and the Church during times of persecution - and the East experienced that in Aces - from the bad Emperors, to the Crusaders, to the Mohammedan onslaughts.

To add liturgy to the list is not only out of the ballpark, it is off the planet. The liturgy has evolved thorough MULTIPLE incarnations and through multiple ethnic and cultural revisions. Its evolution keeps the liturgists more than busy!

Going back to the Gospel, we are mandated to �love God� and �love our neighbor� to the best of our ability. If we are unwilling to take a step back and truly look at how we human beings can fulfill God�s mandate, then we are just deceiving ourselves. Hitching our salvation to anything but Christ's Gospel teaching is buying a worthless insurance policy.

The idea of �don�t change anything lest we lose what we have� is certainly a valid perspective. But I propose that it doesn�t allow the church to move. And if the Church doesn�t move within the ever changing universe of people and the environment, then we�re just a museum and not the evangelical �go into the highways and byways� that Christ mandated for His apostles and disciples.

We need to read the Gospel, pray like maniacs, invoke the Holy Spirit and GET OUT THERE to reach all of humanity in whatever way we can engage them.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Dear John,

My, what protestant (or possibly Jesuit) seminary teaches that lovely little bit of Protestant theology? Can't be Catholic or Orthodox, as it is in direct contradiction to 2000 years of teaching.

As to your attempted characterization of me, well lets just say that the prognosis for a successful career as a diagnostician for yourself is poor to dire at best, as you are quite wrong on all accounts.

As I previously mentioned, it is now Holy Week, and I won't get into this now. But I will be back after Pascha to present the Orthodox position on this issue.

Alexandr (Hardly unwilling to actually stand up and be identified)

Dr. John,
Till now I have demured from really questioning what faith background had produced the thoughts I've been reading in your posts knowing that Catholicism admits a very large and wide base of people. Still, some of your comments strike me as odd. Of course, on a certain level such differences don't matter, but expecting to have a discourse on something as soundly Catholic/Orthodox as the Divine Liturgy or the interrelationship of Scripture and Tradition and their transmission through the ages requires a, well, mutual starting point that I think was assumed rather than established.

Aside from Alexandr's comment regarding the gospels (which suggests a rather narrow "canon within a canon" approach which was Luther's innovation), I wonder how you can preferentially place Scripture the way you do and not see the fundamental... tension let us say, that exists between this position and Catholic teaching.

The Church differentiates between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium but they are co-equal in importance, though unique in their own rights. When the Church expounds on the topic, they refer to it all under the heading of "Divine Revelation" first, which is transmitted through the Magisterium, but existed *first* as Traditions and later written down in an inspired form as Scripture. Scripture is the word of God. We know what Scripture is via Tradition, not apart from it. The authoritative voice on both is the Magisterium. Three legs on one stool, as it were.

the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, puts it thus:
DV 10

So while many people do preferentially place Scripture outside Tradition, they are not thinking with the "mind of the Church" or perhaps with "the Spirit of Vatican II" when they do so.

Likewise, it seems a small concession that you should admit that
Well this does seem odd since the liturgy is the title of the forum and the Revised Divine LITURGY is what has most people speaking up here. That is, it's an assumption for most of us that it has taken this long to be conceded. It was directly addressed in a recent document from the Holy See on translation for the liturgy:

Liturgiam Authenticam under Vocabulary

Your frequent reliance on popular references to cell phones or the like for increasing the understandability of the language comes to mind as an exaggerated dependence on modern modes.

It specifically addresses issues of gender as well:
LA under Gender

And here's the issue that I brought up above: that there maybe sound theological reasons behind retaining phrases like "blessed is the man" like the "clear notion of man as a unitary, inclusive and corporate yet truly personal figure". The Church's teaching office says that changes *may* be made if these sound theological reasons are understood. I think we're all sorely lacking and the general trend I've seen in gender neutral translations (TNIV comes to mind) is just to apply across-the-board changes.

Once married to the gender-neutral ideology, I can appreciate why the largely Protestant translators of TNIV and other works *have* to be across the board, lest they admit of the need for an authoritative teaching office to discern when each change is appropriate or not. We're not married to such an ideology as Catholics and we *do* have a teaching office to answer these questions. I wonder whether a thorough theological study of each instance in the RDL was carried out and where I can read their findings?

As for the importance of the liturgy in all this, well, this again is something that Catholics and, I think I can say the Orthodox as well, take for granted but may strike others as not so obvious. In the Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the liturgy is placed in the same paragraph as the narration of salvation history along with the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost and the death and resurrection of Christ Himself (6). More to the point it states:
SC 10

Further it states:
SC 21

Now, when it states that parts of the liturgy are "divinely instituted", that's big T tradition right there which is right on par with Scripture as part of Divine Revelation. It goes on to say that elements should change if they need to, and I don't think anyone here is saying that we should *never* change those parts which may, rather we are saying that gender neutrality is "out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy" and is "unsuited to it". Sadly, there is no exclusive listing of what is and isn't divinely instituted in the liturgy, but this is why people have theology degrees and think about this stuff - which is why I asked the questions above.

Dr John, you write:
which is the point I was trying to make: that the ideologically motivated gender neutrality is purely subjective as has been most of the arguments you have presented thus far. I guess this was not clear in how I wrote it, but now it has been rectified. The problem of modern America is that many of us *think* we know what love is but have mistaken something else for it. Which is why I use truth as an indicator of whether love is actually present. The note I make is two elements of Scripture brought together in a fashion that some of the Father's of the Church did when reading Scripture, namely, I took John 14:6 and 1 John 4:16 and drew the conclusion that if Christ is God, tells us that He is the Truth and another part of Scripture tells me that God is also love, and that God is an inseparable unity of persons, then Truth and Love are inseparable from one another.

So here's an example: it doesn't make other Christians feel good, or feel "included" when I tell them that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the faith and the are deficient unless visibly united with it. That's tough stuff to say and be quite sure I don't usually say it so bluntly so don't key in on that. The point is, it's not loving my neighbor if I withhold this truth from them because they are just as deserving of the fullness of the faith and God that I enjoy as a Catholic and sharing this with them is loving them. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, yes He approached her with love and openness and compassion. But he also followed the meeting saying, "Go and sin no more". Tough cookies for a woman who probably derived her entire income and well-being from her profession. Lying about something will never be loving a person, despite popular notions of "white lies". Neither has the Church shied away from this position as evidenced by such documents like Dominus Iesus which reiterated Jesus Christ's centrality in salvation viz world religions.

If the liturgy is changed and loses subtleties in the language (like the unitary and inclusive nature of man) then the liturgy is failing to transmit the fullness of the faith. It becomes less than it should be because of a shortsighted dependence on an ideology and a shortsighted vision of what love really is. Most of the people on this forum thread see the problem in that - see the importance of the liturgy and are worried that the RDL will be shortchanging themselves, converts and future generations of the riches they've been accustomed to as a matter of course. That's a Catholic sensibility regarding the liturgy at work which even our Orthodox brethren can sympathize with. Protestants are usually the only folks who can dissociate the worship services they attend from the transmission of "faith".

Which brings me to the first point when you say:

You have been prescribing a method of using language (gender neutrality and modern modes) in the liturgy instead of describing how language is already used in liturgy (e.g. man as "unitary, inclusive and corporate yet truly personal figure"). Perhaps this stems from not seeing the liturgy as the truly Other-Worldly event that Catholics and Orthodox take it to be. Whatever the reason, you have a lot of people on this thread telling you that your ideas of language do not correspond to the way we use language in the Liturgy's X and current time = Y.

Peace,
Mike J.

boy I hate writing 2000 word replies...

I agree with Mike J.

This is not well thought out , nor can I write as eloquently but here is an example in scripture where "common language" change, or distort its meaning, (and actually me being a commoner have no idea what they are trying to say and confused by it)

please keep in mind I do not want to offend anyone
that's is I will not type here what is in one of the bibles that I have. I do not know why it bugs me the way that it is written?

Genesis
Ch.18
verse 11-13

Good News Bible
by American Bible Society

march 10, 1993

Pres. of Nat'l Conference of Catholic Bishpos

Rachael

Tell that to all the men and women I know who are offended and insulted by the institution of gender neutral language.
Nobody is screaming anything. We are realists. We know what has been done and we are not pleased.

BTW--Most of the 60's radicals are not dead. In fact, they are now in positions of authority.

Sigh. Again, you imply that the use of gender neutral language enables mankind to engage the universe and the environment with more love and compassion. Not many are convinced of such a perspective.

I too, must admit that there seems to be a strong protestant influence.

Brother Mike J., I am knocked over by the thoughtful ideas that you present in your posting and the theological acumen that they display. For me, they show a clear commitment to understanding the ideas that we are talking about and a thoughtful development of the theological principles that underlie them. It�s clear that you have thought these through theologically and haven�t just put out a knee-jerk reaction. (And 2000 word replies are sometimes necessary to address the multiple issues that some folks present.)

You comment:

�The problem of modern America is that many of us *think* we know what love is but have mistaken something else for it. Which is why I use truth as an indicator of whether love is actually present. The note I make is two elements of Scripture brought together in a fashion that some of the Father's of the Church did when reading Scripture, namely, I took John 14:6 and 1 John 4:16 and drew the conclusion that if Christ is God, tells us that He is the Truth and another part of Scripture tells me that God is also love, and that God is an inseparable unity of persons, then Truth and Love are inseparable from one another�.

�Love� is a strange thing. As I understand it, it is the heart-based desire to achieve what is best for the beloved. The analogy that Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, is without question. If Christ is indeed the �Truth�, then it is clear that we Christians must absolutely bring everyone to Him, as the Truth of universal and human existence. But, prescinding from other scriptural �connections�, when Christ tells us that the New Covenant LAW is that we love God and love our neighbors, then it would seem that the connectivity is between Christ Himself and what He told us was paramount: love of God and love of neighbor.

So, your statement about Truth and Love being inseparable from one another makes perfect theological sense.


You follow through on a subsequent theological principle:

�So here's an example: it doesn't make other Christians feel good, or feel "included" when I tell them that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the faith and the are deficient unless visibly united with it. That's tough stuff to say and be quite sure I don't usually say it so bluntly so don't key in on that. The point is, it's not loving my neighbor if I withhold this truth from them because they are just as deserving of the fullness of the faith and God that I enjoy as a Catholic and sharing this with them is loving them.�

I understand what you are saying here, and I perceive it as a clear shift from fundamental Systematic Theology to Ecclesiology. Much in this depends on one�s understanding of Church. I have no indecision or question about the position of the Catholic and Orthodox churches as the fullness of the baptized �ekklesia�. But the Catholic church, at least, has always taught that that God is present even to those outside the Church, and that they can attain �heaven� because of their righteous lives despite not knowing of Christ and His Gospel, because they have come to understand the �love of God; love of neighbor� teaching of Christ. (Wow! Isn�t grace wonderful!!) While we would rejoice at these people coming to loving Christian communities, and we take the time and effort to evangelize them, we should at least understand where they are, and honor them for their graced (?) understanding.

At this point, you move into Moral Theology:

�When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, yes He approached her with love and openness and compassion. But he also followed the meeting saying, "Go and sin no more". Tough cookies for a woman who probably derived her entire income and well-being from her profession. Lying about something will never be loving a person, despite popular notions of "white lies". Neither has the Church shied away from this position as evidenced by such documents like Dominus Iesus which reiterated Jesus Christ's centrality in salvation viz world religions.�

I think you are right on target on this one. I will, however, remind you that �sin� is both objective and subjective. A person doing evil to another is inherently sinful, and in need of counsel/education. But there are many who don�t have the ability to see doing certain things to another as evil � not to mention doing offenses to God! This is where we need to focus education on moral issues. Too often, a type of fascism has crept into Christian education where we mimic the black/white dichotomy of the Torah and the Talmud. �Do this and it�s evil and a sin.� And this is the major modus-operandi of many �faith� communities. It leads to jihads, crusades and persecutions. �Believe this and lead your life this way or else God will get you.� But, as Christians, it mandates to us the need to reflect on one�s actions and to discern how they are compatible with the �love God, love one�s neighbor� mandate. And sometimes the 'obvious' isn't exactly the moral thing to do. (E.g., the Samaritan on the road.)

This former perspective clearly (at least to me) is in direct contradiction to Christ who told His disciples to discern where the people are. (I�m thinking of the people who in Acts would eat the food that had been consecrated to idols. Hey, free grub is free grub. And if you are subsistence, anything edible is a gift. If you are a barely subsistence Christian in a Moslem area, do you partake of the food that is offered by Moslems at Eid-Al-Fitr? It�s hard to resist a sandwich when you have only a little rice. We need to consider where the people are.)


In your next comments, you move on to Liturgical Theology - the absolute mine-field of Christian theology: (Old seminarian joke: what�s the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? You can negotiate with a terrorist�.!!!)


�If the liturgy is changed and loses subtleties in the language (like the unitary and inclusive nature of man) then the liturgy is failing to transmit the fullness of the faith.�

I�ve got a problem here. The �liturgy�, as its name implies (�laos ergeizei� = �the people act�) is not static. By definition, it can�t be since it must be the peoples� action. Thus, what happens at the people�s celebration of the Lord�s Eucharist at Passover and His Resurrection from the Dead, is a living entity. Putting the liturgy into black-letter law and �red-letter� citations denies its ontological existence as the people�s action. It can and should be changed as circumstances require. This is not to suggest that essential elements of the faith should be excised or amended, but rather to realize that focus will change depending on the human circumstance. And this is where "sermons" and "education" come into play. It's not just during the liturgy, but rather an adjunct element of the community as a worshipping and mutually-serving group.

Our world changes depending on a lot of circumstances. And the people will respond as circumstances require. The Lord�s Eucharist must be made �real� (=real-ized�) as best as the people can accomplish it. And our collective cultural experience along with the doctrinal history of the Church must be part of the equation that determines what we do.

(I am recalled of Fr. Walter Ciszek, S.J., who, while in prison in the Soviet gulag, used to take raisins that were smuggled in to him as nourishment and would soak them in warn water, and use the liquid as the �fruit of the vine� to celebrate Eucharist along with whatever bread was available. I�m sure the liturgists would have angina, but he did what he could under the circumstances. Holy Eucharist with unusual elements, or no Eucharist at all? Is there really a question here for a priest in prison?)


Further, you note:

�It becomes less than it should be because of a shortsighted dependence on an ideology and a shortsighted vision of what love really is. Most of the people on this forum thread see the problem in that - see the importance of the liturgy and are worried that the RDL will be shortchanging themselves, converts and future generations of the riches they've been accustomed to as a matter of course. That's a Catholic sensibility regarding the liturgy at work which even our Orthodox brethren can sympathize with. Protestants are usually the only folks who can dissociate the worship services they attend from the transmission of "faith".�

All of a sudden, in the midst of really good theological discourse, the RDL raises its ugly head. I agree that some of the RDL is pretty poor; some is actually good. (I like the inclusion of the �theotokos� [OK, Greek bias on my part], but it puts us in line with our Orthodox brethren who use the term. And ANYTHING that makes us �be doing the same thing and saying the same prayers� is for me a blessing.)

WE have got to get the mucky-mucks to get up off their tushes and make re-union a reality. No more �my diocese� � �your diocese�, �my jurisdiction� � �your jurisdiction� baloney. The secular world is out there, and so are the Zlami�s who want to overwhelm the world and lead people into a false faith in Mohammed and his so-called �revelation�. If changing liturgical wording on our Catholic part and on the Orthodox part brings us together, then Yahoo!! Clinging to a 1920s Ruthenian rendition has its value for those whose salvation is linked to a certain external practice. But the Church in 2008 (and beyond) has got to make sure we have the armaments to confront the forces of falsehood expressed in Islam, and the �whatever you want� forces of contemporary irreligious society: �if you screw people and the poor to make a buck, hey � I made a buck!�

Love really means caring for the �others� and doing what is best for them. The liturgy must inspire people to live Gospel lives and not just preserve the riches that we have. It�s the �treasure in heaven� that counts, not the treasures here on earth � liturgical, financial or otherwise. I feel bad for the folks whose salvation depends upon one or another practice, form or linguistic manifestation. St. Paul marveled at "Oh! The freedom of the people of God!!" as being freed from the "do this, do that" mandates of the Torah law. As Christians, we need to go out and tell people: "Do you know that God tells us to love one another and to take care of each other?" And then let them make a decision. (But badger them to make sure they see the absolute Truth and logic in this Gospel!) This is INDEED the "Truth" that Christ came to proclaim!!

As my buddy Sharon always said: �GO GET �EM!!!�

Blessings to All God�s Children!

Dr John

If I did not know better, I would say that this comment is insulting to many people.
And so gender neutral language will help the Church confront the falsehoods of Islam. Excuse me if I reject that.
Please don't feel bad. Nobody feels bad that you embrace gender neutral language---many disagree with you---but they do not feel bad for you.


Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind!

Dr. J

I liked your post and agree with what you are saying. I think the main problem is that I (and I am guessing many others are sick and tired of Politically Correct America.) I am not sure when it was decided that America should be an Atheist Country when a student will get in more trouble for saying a prayer than for saying a curse word. When did it become ok to show Desperate Housewives plotting numerous sinful acts, but not to show a Sunday Mass? When did the 10% of Americans who identify themselves as Atheists get the rest of us scared even to wish someone a Merry Christmas or pray before a meal at a restaurant?
I think this is the main issue we are used to being pushed around in the world, we are used to being told what we can and cannot say, but in church we are free with the scripture and the Lord to pray and say all the things we cannot say in the world and then there is an intrusion into our world of prayer and peace, someone telling us how to pray and what words need to be changed. Maybe there should be an optional PC Bible for all of those who cannot understand that Mankind means humankind or that Jesus was the Son and not the Child of God. But I am sick of being pushed around and having to be PC I want to pray my prayer the way I was taught it and not be scared because I said for "us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven"
I agree with you that they are words and that even they are of this world and yes I am sure over time I will become used to the change, but I do not like change and especially for the PC agend since I see them beig in cahoots with Atheism. I am more scared of an Atheist than a Muslim because even they have faith in something and can acknowledge that there is something greater than themselves but the people who see themselves as God's like the Athiest they terrify me. The word is for the people but changing it would not be for the people but for one person. I do not think every book should be changed for one person. What is next? Sometimes looking at the color yellow gives me headaches should all yellow be removed from the Church and stainglass windows? I agree it is a material thing and does not matter but should one decide the whole.

Yours in Christ,
Maura

Dear Sister Maura, I think you have squarely hit many of the major issues on the head.

The primary issue is being a true servant of the Lord. He told us, quite clearly, that we are to love God, the Creator, and to love our neighbors as we would love ourselves.

I am with you on the idea that many of the words and the practices that are familiar to us are REALLY important to US, and I mean US, that are familiar with them. And at the same time, we have to go out "and go get 'em" to bring folks in to the Gospel. But the words that we use are usually for "us", as a support to our efforts to evangelize. Political correctness is the for weak-minded. I say "Merry Christmas" and even "God bless you" after sneezes, and no one has EVER given me grief. Why? Because folks know that I am sincere. If there is a problem, then one should just apologize and move on. No one can condemn someone for that. (Unless they are stupid.)

Honestly, I fear Moslems more than Atheists. The Moslems have a 'system' and a 'structure' that militates against anybody who is non-Mohammedan, and even allow them to kill the non-believers. The atheists are usually kinda "we believe this/that", but at least they are usually willing to talk since they have no "scriptures" like the Koran to make them think that they are legitimate and that authorize them to annihilate everybody else who disagrees.

For the atheists, I usually take the tact that "hey, I believe in God, whatever that might mean for you". But my care for them provides a witness of concern that can't be denied. And if it's based upon my faith in God, then there's no possible argument from them. They might dismiss it, but it's still there for them to deal with. And that creates possibilities for evangelization.

I am very much in favor of going out into the "byways and the alleyways" to buttonhole the non-believers and to talk to them, person-to-person. Like Christ, if we encounter someone and show them real love and concern, they have no real choice except to at least listen. And if we help them, in a way that they can understand, then we have at least one person who might come to Christ. And that's what it is all about. And even if we are not directly able to bring them to Christ, at least they have the idea that Christians have a clue. And they have no 'ammunition' to shoot at Christians for being hostile to them.

Changes in liturgy, or renderings of public prayer, can be distressing. And make us older people uncomfortable. And sometimes the changes are stupid. But the public prayers of the church are only a minor element in our evangelization. (The theologians and liturgists are probably now running for the nitroglycerine tablets for an attack of angina!), but the reality it, it's us folks in the "pews" who do the real evangelizing - among our family, among our friends and among our co-workers. When our contacts see us, and see us as "good people", it's hard for them to ignore what our lives witness. We love God, and we REALLY care for our neighbors - we're there when fire, flood or hardship hit a family.

Just like our Amish brethren were when the assasin hit the schoolhouse in Lancaster and murdered the children. They forgave the murderer, and even welcomed his family to prayer. I read about this and thought to myself: "The Lord must be pleased that His Gospel totally imbued His children with His message of Love." I would hope that I had the strength. What a witness!!

The words are important, especially for those who are more mature in life and in participation in the Community, but the words are less than important if they don't help us to reach the "others".

I ask myself daily, apart from a few bucks to the homeless on the streets of Washington, DC, what have I done to let the non-Christians know that Christ's message is alive in me and in the way that I treat my fellow human beings? And yes, I wear my cross (three-bar) so that it is (usually) visible outside my polo shirt so that there is NO doubt about my affiliation. It's not presenting myself as a 'Christian nut case', but rather an ordinary way of evangelizing, much like Ste. Therese of Lisieux in her theology of "little things". And talking with people. Not sermonizing, but rather asking how folks are doing and if there is anything I can do to help.

Blessings to you, Sister Maura. "Go get 'em!!"

Blessings to ALL!

Dr John

I agree with this. And I believe that the "old" language--the non-neutered language--can reach more people.

Christos Voskrese!

Glory to Thee O Lover of Mankind!

Dr. John:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

You've also "hit the nail on the head." As my spiritual father once said to me about my own work, "you get into places and homes that a priest could never get into." "People somehow feel more comfortable unburdening to you and tell you things they wouldn't consider revealing in the confessional."

It's the "being there" for people that's so important in a world that is increasingly cold, distant, and harsh. And it's the "going the extra mile" when others don't think they have the time or want to take it that separates the true believers from the rest of the pack. It's the "being genuine" and "walking the walk." People can spot a phony a mile away and they take a long detour around the people who want to make every contact a theological argument.

As I once observed to someone who needed a "pick me up," we walk three-legged into the Kingdom--something like a three-legged race. Sometimes I pick you up and get you going; sometimes you pick me up--but in the end we don't make it alone; we need each other.

You obviously live what a friend of mine once observed. "We may be the only Bible some people ever read."

In Christ,

BOB

X. B!
C. I. X!
Bob,
I liked it, it is real.

Mykhayl:

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!

It can be a bit scary if you stop and think about it. Imagine the responsibility of being the conduit between God and another person. I guess I never thought of it until I had to get into that kind of role. I always thought that clergy "got it" with ordination--something like a special conduit that they could "plug into" the Divine and everything would always be right.

Well, I get a lot of people who have been hurt by the Church or their local minister of whatever kind. I do advanced funeral planning. It always bothers me when people say, "Number 4 in my instructions is NO CLERGY. Will you preach my funeral?"

I've had other times when people in my parish have asked me to guide their spiritual journey or give them some advice on prayer or praying. One woman who helps me with my election district said she watches me all the time and wants to know how she can learn to pray like me. What do you say to people when they hit you with this kind of thing?

I know, ask for the grace not to lead anyone astray and to be the best kind of example you can be.

Here's a prayer I use often:

Lord, help me be the kind of example You want me to be for Your People. Help me to love You always, above everything. Show me Your Kindness, grant me a spirit of true repentance, keep me close to You always, and then do with me what You will. AMEN.

In Christ,

BOB

X. B!
C. I. X!
Bob,
Sure it�s scary, it�s real. You are there when they are vulnerable, not board and apathetic. You are not preaching to the choir and you may be the closest personal connection they get next to AM radio. You are there to serve not to be served playing scout master controlling the stupid peasants. It�s real. You are real. Pray for my charity.
Michael

I find gender neutral language offensive. Re-writing the Holy Bible and the Holy Liturgy to cater to the anti-Christian demands of Molly Yard and Patricia Ireland is just dumb.

I also find it odd that almost no one in our Byzantine Catholic Church wants gender neutral language. The only ones who do want it are all men, and all liberal priests who reject what the pope said about it.

Has anyone here been to St. John's Cathedral in Parma? It's empty. The few who are there can't sing the deformed music. Why is it a model for anything?

But I guess I'm a just a stupid woman. I guess I'm not educated enough to understand that I should be offended by gender neutral language.

God help us!

Dear Sister "Lady Byzantine", I have read your post and am somewhat confused.

You talk about 'neutral language' and then link them to Molly Yard (don't know who that is) and Patricia Ireland. And then link to the idea that it is 'liberal priests'.

And then you jump to the Cathedral in Parma and its lack of worshippers and the 'deformed music' as the cause.

"Educated enough" is not the issue. The real questions are many. The language issue is there - and the question is: by using other nouns/pronouns, are we killing off the reality of our Liturgy? Or are we just making updates to contemporary American language use?

As for the music of the liturgy, that is certainly also a question. I've been worshipping in a Byzantine/Ruthenian parish for more than 30 years. And I LOVE music. And I still get screwed up at Liturgy when I (loudly) sing the responses and find myself "out of synch" with the 'approved' text. (Thank God, at Pascha, we used the old yellow books!!)

I think that some of the text changes are decent - they bring us closer to our Constantinople tradition (like "theotokos") and ultimately grease the skids with our Orthodox brethren. We were "one" until the translations were made from Slavonic to English in the 1920s up to the 1950s. Some of the Byzantine-Catholic translations were really kind of "romantic tradition" and rather 'free' in terms of rendering the Slavonic. But they were comfortable for the people in the pews. And to change them now is a real assault on the peoples' worship. Any changes should have come from the community of people and not from some committee of experts. I trust the babas more than anybody else.

I beg you to not move away from the Byzantine Catholic church because of changes. As long-time Byzantine/Carpatho-Ruthenians, we need to stand with our parish communities and the people in them. I always remember: it's the PEOPLE who are the church. And whenever I get frustrated about the 'official' stands on X, Y or Z, I remember Tom, Mary, John, Daria, Monica, and Jack who are my fellow worshippers - and I realize that I could NEVER move away from these incredibly wonderful people who have been stalwarts of the parish and incredibly wonderful supporters of myself and the other members of our parish. It's the PEOPLE!!

Blessings to All!

Dr John

"I beg you to not move away from the Byzantine Catholic church because of changes. As long-time Byzantine/Carpatho-Ruthenians, we need to stand with our parish communities and the people in them. I always remember: it's the PEOPLE who are the church. And whenever I get frustrated about the 'official' stands on X, Y or Z, I remember Tom, Mary, John, Daria, Monica, and Jack who are my fellow worshippers - and I realize that I could NEVER move away from these incredibly wonderful people who have been stalwarts of the parish and incredibly wonderful supporters of myself and the other members of our parish. It's the PEOPLE!!"

Dr. John,

While I appreciate your stand to fight for what is right, how long should one wait for the wrong to be corrected, if it ever is? A year, two, five, ten? Hasn't the Byzantine Catholic church been through enough in its history?

This recent chapter was not needed, and has caused myself and others to leave for the Orthodox church. If everything was corrected tomorrow, I would not run back to the BCC, because it ran away from me in the first place. Ones church should be a source of peace and stability in an otherwise chaotic life here in the U.S..

I know, the Orthodox church is not perfect, like any other church, but I've never been more at peace spiritually since becoming an Orthodox Christian.

Continued prayers for the Ruthenian Greek Catholics.

Christos Voskrese!

It is our church who has moved away from us. I've met some really nice people at the Orthodox Church, many,many former Ruthenians who left because they got tired of waiting for the official changes to happen that have been talked about for years! The priest at the one Orthodox Church is a former Ruthenian -- for me then, it will be like going home. Maybe my friends and former parishioners will come visit me, and see what they are missing.

Dr. John,

I am very confused by your post.

You seem to think that this is just a translation issue because we were 'one' with the Orthodox when Slavonic was the norm everywhere. Do you realize the differences in rubrics that exist now in the official translation compared to the red book and orthopraxis. Do you realize that one verse antiphons is not the norm? Do you realize how many litanies are cut out of the RDL? etc.

Go to St. Elias (a Greek Catholic parish) in Toronto sometime if you can and you will see a complete liturgy. It takes from 100-120 minutes as opposed to the 45 minute liturgies that take place in many parishes in the BCA. Now I can already hear the cries that it's not the time that matters, so on and so forth, but the salient point is don't tell me that we are greasing the skids back to the Orthodox when one can be in and out in under an hour. Why did I bring up the time factor, because anyone with a fifth grade education can figure out that things are missing from the RDL when they are in and out in under an hour.

If you are going to do any begging, I respectfully ask that you beg the BCA to allow the Red Book because it is the BCA that has changed and moved away from the people. Beg them to have Vespers and Matins at least at their cathedrals and at as many parishes as possible too. Beg them to remove the pews so that the people can do proper prostrations.

Your heart definitely is in the right place by having the fellowship with those you worship with, but it is matter of how much is too much for one to take. Some have a different breaking point. Some have a different place of refuge. Some have sought the Orthodox church, some, like myself, have gone to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

Monomakh

I find it rather interesting that you think the term "Theotokos" is perfectly understandable, but the word "mankind" is not.

I concur with this.

The future is not looking good. Many "Pirohy Rust Belt" churches
will be closing. The elderly parishioners with no Ruthenian Church near by(you know, the old "Chapels of Conveniece") will be forced to go to their local Roman Church. What will the few younger faithful do? Drive 10-20 miles to attend a Ruthenian RDL parish? Assimilate into a local RC parish? How many will choose to attend an Orthodox parish, and how many of those will just join the Orthodox Church of what ever jurisdiction?

U-C

Brother Monomakh, I hear your points and generally agree. "Dumbing down" the liturgy is not spiritually profitable; it deprives the community of 'prayer forms' that may (or may not) be useful to the baptized faithful. I do remember the 'Litany of the Catechumens' and wondered why we were doing this when we didn't have anybody coming in. But, hey, perhaps we were praying for folks in other parishes.

It's pretty clear that the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has had a number of emendations over time. The variances between the Greek and Serbian/Ukrainian/Russian/Romanian/Albanian/Damascene etc. recensions bear witness to this. The intro to the Liturgy involved the Patriarch getting vested in one place and then processing to the Temple is a clear example. Same for the bishop and the pastor. (Our opening psalms and litanies were present for 'something to do' while the clergy processed to the altar. It's the old musicians': "vamp until ready" practice!)

My own perspective is that of the Holy See: when doing anything regarding the liturgy, LOOK TO OUR ORTHODOX BRETHREN FOR THE MODEL. Thus, the Liturgikon published in Rome in the late 1940s should be the gold standard - it was and is the best delineation of what our liturgics have been.

This does NOT mean that we worshipping Christians can't make emendations. This has been the practice since time immemorial and gives the liturgists a reason to exist and study this. So, in the U.S., when it is Super-Bowl Sunday, and the priest decides to give a one minute homily, it's just accommodating the needs of the faithful. No biggie!! Liturgy is, as the term demands, the action of the people.

As for doing Vespers and Matins, I agree that they are among the most inspirational services because of their texts. But the fact is: people (even the most devout Orthodox) don't generally attend. Among Greeks, Othros is standard on Sunday morning before the Liturgy. But you can generally count on the fingers of one hand the folks who are there for the "Blessed be God". Vespers on Saturday is more a Slavic thing. A few people attend, but not many. I once went to the OCA cathedral in Boston for the Vespers of a feast day. The priest was vested and standing before the altar, waiting for someone to arrive. I, and another Jesuit seminarian came through the door, he looked at us and then began. Thank God we knew what to do, sorta-kinda.

The poor priest was a bit flummoxed when he realized that there were more Uniates in the church than Orthodox. (No problem - he was grateful that there was someone there to pray with him for the feast.) Thus, my perspective that we have to get beyond this Orthodox/Catholic stuff. It's the prayer and worship.

Ung-Certez, I agree that the future isn't looking too rosy for the Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian churches in the Rust-Belt. Our older people will certainly be damaged by the closure of the local parish churches. Should they be forced to go Roman, it's a serious failure to provide for the people. Should they find an Orthodox parish that fulfils their spiritual needs, then all well and good. Johnstown parishes will be pretty comfortable with the same liturgical practices, music and 'family' atmosphere; OCA churches with their current issues and their GREAT RUSSIAN!! perspective might be somewhat uncomfortable.

One would hope that there would be serious examination of the current parishes and their locations and the assignment of priests to serve the people so that all the Byzantine Catholics (old and young) could have a satisfying home.

To be honest, I'd rather the older folks (and the youngers) find a spiritual home that mirrors their heritage so that they can continue to find God and practice their faith as they have done for many decades. In this case, jurisdiction shouldn't seem to be the primary concern.

I attend a Ruthenian parish (for more than 30 years!). The liturgy has 'changed' somewhat. But what keeps me attending is the people in the community with whom I have a relationship. They welcomed me more than 30 years ago - a strange Greek among the Carpatho's - and they continue to be the bedrock of the parish and my relationship to it. I could go elsewhere in a heartbeat, but when I list the names of the people in the parish and their kindness to me (and my stroke-victim Mom), I cannot consider going elsewhere. Indeed, it's kind of 'ethnic' and 'cradle', etc., but it works.

It's the people. Not the hierarchy, not the clergy, not the liturgy, or anything else. It's the baptized faithful who constitute the loving, baptized-Christian community. And I am eternally grateful for the wonderful people in our parish. And I hope that the people in 'dying' parishes will be able to find solace in being with other good Christian people of whatever jurisdiction. People who really care.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Dear Brother John,

In honesty, can we as Christians justify chopping the several hours out of the week that we give back to God as concessions to pastoral sensitivity? Isn't the role of the Church to elevate mankind to the level Of God, not drop the Godhead down to mortal levels? Should not the Church have expectations for the laity to meet? Yes, Orthos, and Vespers are poorly attended. Now we can address this in 2 ways. The first way is to eliminate them and pretend that there is no problem. The correct way, of course, would be to present the standard and educate and encourage the faithful to meet it. Just like in school. we can lower the standards and make everybody an A+ student (which, unfortunately, we have done in this country), or we can maintain proper standards and assist the students with meeting those goals.

As far as your comment "It's the people. Not the hierarchy, not the clergy, not the liturgy, or anything else. It's the baptized faithful who constitute the loving, baptized-Christian community.", this is congrgationalism. There are many good people right down the street from me. Nice, family oriented people, gathered together at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness. What separates "these" good people from Christians? The hierarchy, the clergy and the liturgy that you have dismissed so readily.

Hold fast to that which has been passed on to you.

sinner Alexandr

Brother Alexander, I understand what you are saying. But the church is "congregational" in the sense that it is the baptized people who are the church. And when baptized people leave, the congregation is diminished.

And if we have the opportunity to ensure their continued participation, are we not sinning when we require adherence to a particular format for worship. This is not to say that we should jettison some things or everything, but rather that we should clamor to make sure that they (as well as everyone else!) is a part of the community. It's not a 'dumbing down' but rather a keen awareness of how to keep human communities intact.

The main question is: the Gospel demands that we love God and love our neighbors as we would love ourselves, and how do we encompass the un-churched to do this demand of the Lord? If we require adherence to one or other set of liturgical or cultural practices, we once again shoot ourselves in the foot and set ourselves apart from the reality of the world around us.

While 'coming apart from the world' and its values (spiritually!!) is a good thing, demanding that people adhere to a specific set of practices that are not consonant with peoples' real, daily lives, is setting the Christian community up for failure.

Holding to practices of XYZ year might be historically significant, but if people can't accommodate it, then what is the value. [I think of the fasting practices that prohibit me from 'back-boned' tuna fish during Lent, but allow Lobster and crab cakes. In my U.S. circumstances, eat the foolish tuna as the penance (as opposed to meat, shellfish or dairy) and give a pass to the Lobster and crabmeat. Not 'traditional', but surely penitential!] It's the circumstances that make the determination, not the rules in a book.

As for the liturgical practices, too often the services are at 8:00 or 10:00 a.m. Most working adults are at their jobs and can't attend. Sometimes the services are at 7 or 7:30 pm and many can't get to the church from work. In our current economy, many folks work beyond their usual quitting time. When the question is: 'church' or keeping the job and income, most will opt for a paycheck and a roof overhead and food on the table.

AS for the prayer, I find myself on the subway every morning and evening, and I hunker down in my seat (if I get one!) and I use this time to prepare my day and to pray that I do good to everyone that I meet. It's a good thing.

The Lord, as God, came down to us as a human being to show us how to live according to God's plan. We aren't denigrating God when we look to the Christ as the model for our lives. As a human being, He was human in all things, sin alone excepted. So, we look to the Lord as a guide for our lives. We must consecrate our human lives to God's plan in the most loving human way that we can devise. And the Lord of the Gospels is our model.

We must continually pray and meditate on the realities of our salvation so that we fulfill the mandates that Christ gave to us. And we must pray that the Holy Spirit will come to us to guide our every action - and He will come, because Christ promised this to us. We can't be afraid to change things for fear that we will screw up. The Holy Spirit, the butt-kicker of humanity, will be there to make sure that we do what the Lord demands of his baptized faithful.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

I agree too.

When we fail to attend church services without a good reason, we miss the mark (we sin), because we do not really love God. This prayer might be familiar ....


Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

John, wouldn't it be better to make people's life Church and God-centric rather than to merely accommodate God into the schedule of people? From what I see, people aren't leaving because Church is too demanding, but because they are spiritually unfulfilled by the Church's attempt to accommodate mammon. Don't water down the Bride of Christ to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Instead, raise the lowest common denominator to a level where all can become one in Him. Through the Grace of His Holy Church.

Alexandr

I understand the perspective of making our lives �God-centric� and subordinated to the spiritual reality of service.

The problem, clearly, is the fact that most working people have specific hours when they have to be at their stations. Taking time off for religious purposes is without a doubt covered by the Labor standards, but in reality it can lead to trouble. For the non-employed, whether retirees or students, there is not quite the same problem. Sister Elizabeth-Maria's perspective is a valid one, but it applies to the monastics, whose 'job' it is to meditate and to pray. For working people, it's a whole different reality.

I think the big thing is: how does one progress spiritually and in prayer (and good deeds!) while maintaining the employment that ensures a roof over one�s family�s head and food on the table � not to mention clothing and other �luxuries�.

Monastics have a leg up on us regular folks on this one. Their �job� is to meditate and pray. And the people provide support to the monasteries that enables the monastics to accomplish this necessary function in the Church.

For us working folks, we need to discern ways that we can accomplish the very necessary �work� that provides the paycheck, but also ways that we can fulfil our spiritual needs and not force a choice between the two. Here is where the 'gender-neutral' translations comes into play.

While earlier communities had clearly defined roles for men and for women, and their daily 'employment' tasks were clearly defined, our contemporary lives don't make too much of a distinction between men's jobs and women's jobs, and a unified language/description would seem to be more in order with respect to the current reality. So too, a use of 'common' words to exemplify scriptural messages for today's working people would seem to be the appropriate way to go.

I am more than aware of the referential elements of scriptural texts...."X in the Old Testament" refers to Jesus, so we have to maintain the 'male' referent" but on a more pedestrian and obvious level, the blunt, straightforward literal meaning of a text in terms of morals and behaviour needs to be primary. And if a moral obligation or 'lesson' applies to everyone with a soul, then ensure that the message is transparent enough to include both the boys and the girls, then don't restrict it to the boys only.

Blessings to All!

Dr John



















Prayer and meditation are critical for every Christian. And these activities take time. Thus, we MUST find ways that provide the time for meditation and prayer. This is a huge challenge in our everyday lives.

Problems arise when the �church� makes a schedule based on historical not contemporary realities, and expects the faithful to accommodate themselves to it, e.g., feast day liturgies at 10:00 a.m. when most working folk are at their desks or on the assembly line or other duty-station. Suggesting that these working folks are somehow abdicating their Christian responsibilities by being absent from services is just wrong.

In the �old country� (whatever that might have been), absenting one�s self from the fields for a few hours wouldn�t have been a huge problem. In the contemporary U.S., it�s grounds for termination. Not good.

A hundred years ago, labor unions (mostly loudmouth Irish and German Catholics � and Jews) fought for the weekend, and got it. Otherwise, Sunday would be just another workday and there would be no concession for people to go to church. And many unions still have Good Friday as a day free from work to attend church. In Europe, the workers still have Easter Monday as a holy-day to attend church, as well as Assumption Day in August, and All-Saints/All-Souls in November. Not to mention Christmas. But how far can we push?

The Church MUST be accommodating to the needs of its people as they engage in their daily work. We�re not agrarian societies anymore where one controls one�s schedule.

People should be encouraged to pray during the workday; they should be aided to take a minute or two � or ten � to stop and focus on God and their personal spiritual state, without jeopardizing their employment.

Liturgical celebrations must be attuned to people today, and to their workday realities. Historical elements are to be respected as part of our community history, but what is happening now needs to be the yardstick for determining what our contemporary practices should be.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Sorry for the craziness of the preceding post. I was editing and hit (apparently) a wrong key that submitted what I was working on.

How does one 'anathematize' a computer program?

Dr John

Dear Dr. John,

You wrote: �And to change them now is a real assault on the peoples' worship.�

That is the only thing in your post that is accurate. The bishops have assaulted the people with their reformation.

Lady Byzantine

A interesting article titled "Making the Word of the Lord PC" that appeared in the Irish Press in 2000. I think at about mid-way it quotes a Greek Catholic Archimandrite...

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2000/09/10/story359251138.asp

james

ps via crescat blog...

Mea culpa, it's not via the crescat... james

Brothers and Sisters, I beg your indulgence in my preceding post. I was working on several different ideas that were seperated and ultimately were spread apart in the post. And the program just enlisted them in the post. Sorry.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

s a member of the community, the fact remains, it is the church

Brothers and Sisters: I just spent about 45 minutes composing a response to the above postings. I apparently hit the wrong "key" and the whole thing disappeared but for the last line. This is too frustrating. I'm out of here.

Dr John

Dear Dr. John,

That has happened to me, and I know that it is frustrating...and for us it is a loss, as your posts are always so well written while still being personal and informal, and interesting--you truly have a unique style...and even when I don't agree with everything you have said, I still enjoy reading them!

On the occassion that the same thing has happened to me, I have blamed it on divine providence, and realized that for some reason, it was no meant to be. After a few minutes of trying to analyze and thinking about it what I may have written that God did not want printed, I realized that, yes, perhaps it was better off that it disappeared!

In Christ,
Alice

I have begun to read Alexander Schmemann's book on the Eucharist. In the introduction he writes:


In chapter seven he states:



(emphasis in the original except where noted).

The RDL has "transfigured" the official liturgy of the Church with contemporary language driven by feminist idealogy. But this fallen language has no place in the Divine Liturgy. Certainly the new liturgy reflects the thoughts and souls of many modern women and even some men, and in so doing reminds them of earthly cares, not heavenly realities. Modern "feminist" language is the fruit of years of development of thought from the "Enlightenment." Its welcoming into the Divine Liturgy casts a dark shadow upon the light of the Gospel and the Mystery of Faith which is the salvation of mankind.

Let us pray that the experiment fails.

Schememann is often referred to by the reformers as being the inspiration for this or that aspect of the reform.



Thank you for reminding us of Fr. Alexander's words themselves.

What is wrong with it, it totally ignores the teaching of the Church conserning divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture in all its words and all its parts.
Stephanos I

Amen! Amen! Amen, Brat' Reluse!

Ung