Is there a theological problem with Inclusive language?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheMese

Guest
If we could desist from going off on a tangent about feminist Wiccan agendas, what is the actual theological problem with horizontal inclusive language? I don’t get it.

Anthropos is people/human. cf. Anthropology
Aner is male/man/husband
So they can’t both be translated man. That can’t be right can it.

Man doesn’t really mean ‘humanity in general’ as its primary meaning does it? To most it means ‘an adult human male.’

Lets take a well-known Scripture.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,

Surely, the bit that says Jesus is ‘himself human’ is spot on because it’s his humanity that saves us not his maleness.

In addition, humankind is already in the RSV: James 3:7 : For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind.

Anyway, the important question. Is there a real theological reason in saying. We are men, we are male and female men. Or is it just a conservatism on the wane, perhaps comparable with those who can’t bear to drop the Thees and Thous from their RSV Coke Classic.

(You don’t have to go off on a tangent about the evils of making Jesus or the Father a hermaphrodite. You’d just be preaching to to choir.)
 
As long as inclusive language is used only where people are referenced, and not God, it has already been accepted by the Vatican - this fall, the Vatican approved the NRSV for the Canadian lectionary, and it uses inclusive language (although God/Jesus is always “He”). Seems this has been debated for a long time…

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25267
 
Jesus, God-with-Us, is referred to all over the Bible in verses that refer also to the generic human. How is this dealt with. He or they?

Is the expression Man not important? Isn’t the male headship supported by non-inclusive language in a special way. Have we all just got used to gender-inclusivity and thrown up our hands.
 
TheMese said:
…Anthropos is people/human. cf. Anthropology
Aner is male/man/husband
So they can’t both be translated man. That can’t be right can it…
Click to expand...
Yes, they can. It is not uncommon for English words to have several meanings.
TheMese said:
…Man doesn’t really mean ‘humanity in general’ as its primary meaning does it?..
Click to expand...
As a primary meaning, yes. English words are not limited to one meaning which is considered primary.
TheMese said:
…To most it means ‘an adult human male.’…
Click to expand...
This is also a primary meaning of the word man.
 
Personally, I do not like inclusive language. It always comes across as more clinical/technical, cold and clumsy.
Much prefer mankind to humankind; men to human race; etc. I never had any problem, even as a child, understanding the meaning.

Nita
 
Nita said:
Personally, I do not like inclusive language. It always comes across as more clinical/technical, cold and clumsy.
Much prefer mankind to humankind; men to human race; etc. I never had any problem, even as a child, understanding the meaning.

Nita
Click to expand...
In this, thou hast spoken rightly. 👍
 
Certain inclusive language can be acceptable.

However, some words just cannot be translated inclusively without doing violence to the text.

For example, adelphoi translates only as “brothers”, nothing more nothing less. Not “brothers and sisters” and not “siblings”.

Huios/huioi translates only as “sons” not “children.” This has major theological influences. For example, St. Paul writes in Galatians that we have received adoption as sons. Not “children”. When the New American Bible foolishly translated this as “children”, Rome restored this to “sons” because of the theological implications.
 
TheMese said:
If we could desist from going off on a tangent about feminist Wiccan agendas, what is the actual theological problem with horizontal inclusive language? I don’t get it.

Anthropos is people/human. cf. Anthropology
Aner is male/man/husband
So they can’t both be translated man. That can’t be right can it.

Man doesn’t really mean ‘humanity in general’ as its primary meaning does it? To most it means ‘an adult human male.’

Lets take a well-known Scripture.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,

Surely, the bit that says Jesus is ‘himself human’ is spot on because it’s his humanity that saves us not his maleness.

In addition, humankind is already in the RSV: James 3:7 : For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind.

Anyway, the important question. Is there a real theological reason in saying. We are men, we are male and female men. Or is it just a conservatism on the wane, perhaps comparable with those who can’t bear to drop the Thees and Thous from their RSV Coke Classic.

(You don’t have to go off on a tangent about the evils of making Jesus or the Father a hermaphrodite. You’d just be preaching to to choir.)
Click to expand...
Epistle Of Saint James 3:7
or every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man

My translation says man 🤷
 
The theological problem with inclusive language is this:

God gave men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men have certain leadership roles not given by God to women, such as Pope, Bishop, priest, such as the husband’s role as the head of the family.

The Israelites in ancient times were led by men. So it was fitting for God to refer to the Israelites as the sons of Israel. This term indicates all Israelites, but also has the additional meaning of referring to the leadership role of men among the Israelites.

Referring to humanity as Man or mankind has the effect of indicating the roles of leadership of men, the whole being referred to by its head. Mankind is men, women, and children led by men.

Using inclusive language obscures this truth, and even at times denies it. Paul wrote to particular Churches by writing to their leaders, who were male Bishops and priests. Though the truths of his letters are in one sense addressed to everyone, since God put a structure in the Church and in mankind, Paul fittingly addresses the leaders of the Church as brothers. Use of the term ‘brothers and sisters’ hides the truth that men are to lead the Church.
 
You lost me at wiccan feminist agendas. Obviously you are not open minded so why ask the question but to see who sides with you ?
 
Ron_Conte said:
The theological problem with inclusive language is this:

God gave men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men have certain leadership roles not given by God to women, such as Pope, Bishop, priest, such as the husband’s role as the head of the family.

The Israelites in ancient times were led by men. So it was fitting for God to refer to the Israelites as the sons of Israel. This term indicates all Israelites, but also has the additional meaning of referring to the leadership role of men among the Israelites.

Referring to humanity as Man or mankind has the effect of indicating the roles of leadership of men, the whole being referred to by its head. Mankind is men, women, and children led by men.

Using inclusive language obscures this truth, and even at times denies it. Paul wrote to particular Churches by writing to their leaders, who were male Bishops and priests. Though the truths of his letters are in one sense addressed to everyone, since God put a structure in the Church and in mankind, Paul fittingly addresses the leaders of the Church as brothers. Use of the term ‘brothers and sisters’ hides the truth that men are to lead the Church.
Click to expand...
I suppose the most reasonable answer to this is that using the word “man” to refer collectively to all of humanity is slightly anachronistic. Obviously in certain passages, such as the ones you have cited regarding the “sons of Israel” or Paul’s referring to his “brothers” in the churches he was writing to might have some significance but this is less a product of some overarching theological structure and more a product of those passage’s specific intent. For instance, Paul most likely would have directly addressed the leaders of the church he was writing to rather than the entire congregation, this being an aspect of his office as Apostle to oversee the proper formation of those congregations.

Ultimately, the decision to substitute a gender-neutral term when referring to humans collectively is more an aesthetic one than it is anything else. There is a greater danger, I believe, as the language progresses in using such terms without a clear and obvious theological reason why in that the faith will increasingly seem to young eyes to be more of an anachronism than anything else and constrain our ability to properly catechize them.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
You lost me at wiccan feminist agendas. Obviously you are not open minded so why ask the question but to see who sides with you ?
Click to expand...
I’ve seen Inclusive Language threads where some jerk just rushes in and starts bleating it’s all to do with the feminists and their radical agenda and they want a female God. Thin end of the wedge. Blah, blah, blah.

I just wanted to delineate the discussion as being about Inclusive horizontal language and its role/prominence in contemporary language and its theological import.

How do you come to the conclusion I’m not open-minded. I have Bibles of both types and am quite open to both. I must admit though as time goes on, I am wincing quite a bit with the Goodwill to all “men” type verses, such as
Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
I guess I’m getting used to the gender inclusivity of modern English and the humanity/human stuff sounds normal to me whereas the ‘my wife is a man too’ sort of thing sounds archaic.

Actually, I’m probably pro-inclusive language but I’m not decided on whether the ‘human race’ rather than ‘man’ is compatible with the Churches teaching on gender roles. I am an ‘undecided’ and this thread is me thinking aloud as threads should be.
 
TheMese said:
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,

Surely, the bit that says Jesus is ‘himself human’ is spot on because it’s his humanity that saves us not his maleness.
Click to expand...
Laudatur Iesus Christus.

What convinces you that this is true? Why would one assert that a man’s “maleness” is irrelevant to who he is? If one would not, then how is the personal reality of Jesus taken seriously, if one dismisses the importance of His “maleness?”

Specifically, what are the “humanity” and “maleness” to which you refer?

Is there some source of insight that makes this assertion of the unimportance of Jesus’ “maleness” credible?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
anti-inclusive.

Douay-Rheims version reads

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one GOD and one Mediator between GOD and men himself man CHRIST JESUS .

New American Version :

1 Timothy 2:5 And the truth is this: God is one One also is the mediator between GOD and men the man Christ Jesus.

Now I’m not sure and do not have the original text nor could I read it if I did, how it reads but from the time of the original writing up till 20 years or so ago every one new that the word MAN not only meant an human male but the whole human race and there is no need to go changing things just because some one thinks that its being sexist. the word Man means both.

Peace in the Lord

Scott
 
Ron_Conte said:
Vatican Norms for the Translation of Biblical Texts for Use in the Liturgy
bible-researcher.com/vatican-norms.html
are decidedly against inclusive language.

Liturgiam authenticam
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
also rejects inclusive language.
Click to expand...
These have apparently been superseded in the Vatican’s approval of the Canadian lectionary, which does have inclusive language:

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25267

The documents you cite are much older, 1997 and 2001. The Canadian lectionary approval happened just this past fall.
 
There is no theological problems with inclusive language in many situations. However, there are specific times when such language becomes detrimental. When dealing with translating the Bible the problem is a little trickier. All translations by the nature of being a translation lose some accuracy. What is called a “dynamic translation” willingly sacrifices some accuracy so ease of reading is increased. This is useful in many instances. For example, when making children’s Bibles or dealing with those who do not read well. It also is useful when reading large blocks of Scripture at a time for context. One danger of a dynamic translation is that bias is easier to introduce.

Incuslive language is one aspect of translation. The masculine terms are often used when the meaning is intended as all mankind. There is nothing theologically wrong with with translating it thus. I do believe it is unnecessary, as all really know what is meant by the phrase “goodwill to men”. Maybe one day this will change but I think it presents no problem with understanding today.

With God, however, gender in terminology is clearly masculine throughout all the Bible. There is no escape using masculine pronouns, as we do not have any pronouns in English for a person that does not imply some gender. As long as we understand that God does not have gender, I see no problem with it.
 
awalt said:
These have apparently been superseded in the Vatican’s approval of the Canadian lectionary, which does have inclusive language:

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25267

The documents you cite are much older, 1997 and 2001. The Canadian lectionary approval happened just this past fall.
Click to expand...
Let me be blunt: approval of the NRSV for use in the Canadian lectionary is a travesty. In the early 90s when Rome first expressed its disapproval with the NRSV specifically because of its gender-inclusive language, the Canadian bishops balked that (1) there was no need for them to have sought approval for their new lectionary, since the NRSV was merely a “revision” of the already-approved RSV-CE lectionary :nope: ; and (2) lectionaries with the NRSV text had already been printed and distributed :whistle: . However, the Canadian bishops accepted Rome’s “provisional” approval, requiring the lectionary to be re-visited within five years (of 1992, that is) :hmmm: .

Now if anyone in Canada who is subjected to readings from the NRSV at Mass can cite examples where the text was purged of inclusive language to avoid awkward, misleading renderings unacceptable to Rome I’d be interested in hearing about them.

I’m not hurling stones at my neighbors to the north: we in the US have our own travesty with which to contend, the RNAB. :mad:
 
Manfred said:
Let me be blunt: approval of the NRSV for use in the Canadian lectionary is a travesty. In the early 90s when Rome first expressed its disapproval with the NRSV specifically because of its gender-inclusive language, the Canadian bishops balked that (1) there was no need for them to have sought approval for their new lectionary, since the NRSV was merely a “revision” of the already-approved RSV-CE lectionary :nope: ; and (2) lectionaries with the NRSV text had already been printed and distributed :whistle: . However, the Canadian bishops accepted Rome’s “provisional” approval, requiring the lectionary to be re-visited within five years (of 1992, that is) :hmmm: .

Now if anyone in Canada who is subjected to readings from the NRSV at Mass can cite examples where the text was purged of inclusive language to avoid awkward, misleading renderings unacceptable to Rome I’d be interested in hearing about them.

I’m not hurling stones at my neighbors to the north: we in the US have our own travesty with which to contend, the RNAB. :mad:
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it’s 2008 now and they have just approved it this past fall, which was 2007. I haven’t read their lectionary to comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top