RE: [liturgy-l] Inclusive language
- I didn't run into inclusive language until I got to Lutheran Campus Ministry
at the U of MN, where one of the staff members is a definite feminist. It
seemed that we tried everything possible to eliminate "he" or "father" from
all our texts, even to the point of changing the words to the Lord's Prayer
(I had to put my foot down being the head of the worship committee). At the
seminary, even though my first systematic theology class is "Creation and
the Triune God" and not something referring to "Father," our professor still
uses the traditional Trinitarian language when referring to God. The only
people I see trying to get rid of the masculine-dominated language when
referring to God are those women who think they had to fight so hard to be
in places of church authority, even though the ELCA has been ordaining women
for at least 30 years. Now this might be a huge generalization, but that's
been my experience.
From: Steve Benner [mailto:oremus@...]
Sent: Wed, March 03, 2004 7:50 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Inclusive language
At 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
- James 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.