Re: [liturgy-l] Inclusive language
- View SourceAt 3/3/2004 08:41 AM, Frank Senn wrote:
> Gender-inclusive language has had a whole generation to make an impactWhile not discounting the latter statement (most definitely not), I think
> on our culture and no impact has been made. Maybe its time for
> seminaries to worry about more crucial matters, like whether their
> graduates know any real theology.
it will be a matter of time before inclusive language becomes common
throughout the culture. I was first compelled to use it back in college
(1986 is when I started) and my school was at the forefront at the time.
I'd say by the time the generation 10 years younger than me is in
charge--another thirty years or so, things will have changed.
In reality, the language has been shifting, especially the use of "they" to
refer to an indefinite singular person; I expect it will be considered
normative everyday register within a generation and possibly even
grammatically correct by the time I'm gone.
Oremus -- Daily Prayer, Hymnal and Liturgical Resources since 1993
- View SourceJames O'Regan wrote:
>On the order side, the pauline maxim of "neither ...nor" fits the issue at theOne might remember that the categories of Gentile (Greek), slave, and
>level of order.
woman were three berakoth a Jewish--especially Pharisaic--man said each
morning: "Thank God I am not . . . "
Paul was clearly bringing the universal as the ideal. "We put on
Christ" like a cloak. This idea is the basis of the pall, where we see
the cross of Christ and not the individual casket. In Paul's
understanding of order, there is accommodation to the local culture,
found in Eph. 5, for example (if that is by Paul), but it is cast in
the universal: "We are in Christ." Scholars are now quite certain that
there were women priests in the Church until the age of Constantine,
when the Church was recast in the form of the Empire. Jesus had top
come as one or the other, boy or girl, and it is unwise to make law out
of which it was.