Why "Brothers and Sisters"?

[pianistclare]

Do I have to have official documents to back up my opinion, which, BTW isn’t just my opinion. See “Worship and Inclusive Language” by Richard C. Leonard
laudemont.org/a-wail.htm

I wish the Op would clarify the question.

 

[pianistclare]

I have actually been somewhat amused by this thread from the beginning because of the two interpretations to the OP’s question.

The question in the title of the thread is ambiguous in meaning although given the subject matter of previous discussions in this forum it is not surprising that it was interpreted to be a questioning of translation.

The question in the actual thread is still somewhat ambiguous but the additional information in the post makes it clear that the question concerns why any phrase of any translation is included at the beginning of a reading when it does not actually occur in that particular spot in scripture.

that’s the way I read it.

 

[LightBound]

Do I have to have official documents to back up my opinion, which, BTW isn’t just my opinion. See “Worship and Inclusive Language” by Richard C. Leonard
laudemont.org/a-wail.htm

From your linked source, the article’s author states. " Now, in speaking of inclusive language, we’re not talking about horizontal language, or references to people. As far as I’m concerned it’s fine to watch one’s language in this area, and to say “people” or “he or she” instead of the generic “mankind” or “he.” It’s okay, that is, as long as we can do so while using the language gracefully."

So, in your** opinion, is the wording of “Brothers and Sisters” lacking in grace?

 

[SMHW]

that’s the way I read it.

I suspect those people who think the question is about translation had already reached that conclusion before they ever read the OP’s post. Either that or the first posts they’d read were about translation.

 

[Carl_K]

Hey everyone!
Thanks for all your responses. The intent of my question was to ask why we include something in the reading that isn’t in the biblical text. I think that was answered in that it sets up the context of the reading. It seems like the exact history of the inclusion is still unclear.

I hadn’t even considered the PC aspect of it, but clearly there’s some strong opinions here. Funny how words meant to be inclusive have caused division…