Inclusive Language

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Rev. Joshua, Jan 14, 2002.

  1. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    On another thread, we got on the topic of inclusive language and someone asked us not to derail the thread. Consequently, I'm picking up where I left off.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
    Rev. Joshua:
    You being a Rev., I find it bordering on being repulsive that you would EVEN consider using such a trendy, politically correct and absurd term such as (clergyperson). We won't agree on this so-called babble called "inclusive language" so enough of this. I just find it comical that a "Baptist" minister of the word of God would insist on using such a feminist, worldly, nonsensical term.
    We also would not agree, if you are correct, that the term ... ugh... throw-up ... "clergyperson" is a more accurate term to describe the clergy than clergyman. I'm not sure what type of baptist church you are a preacher in, but most baptist churches I know wouldn't have a woman preacher. Now, don't get me wrong. Women are wonderful creatures and I love them (well some of them) alot. But if I walked into a Baptist Church and saw a woman preacher, I'd be out of there so fast.How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you are running around using such idiotic "inclusive language"?

    Really, I'm beginning to think you are not serious about all this and this is some type of spoof. Please, tell me it is a spoof.
    ...[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    James, I don't understand why this upsets you so much. There are men and women who are members of the clergy, so clergyperson is the more accurate term. There are men and women who work for the police and fire departments, so police officer and firefighter are the more accurate terms for those professions.

    Why are you so (amazingly) vehemently opposed to using words that accurately reflect the genders of the people in those professions? Isn't it insulting to the women in these fields to imply that only men hold those jobs?

    As to people taking me seriously, I can't understand how you expect people to take you seriously when you confuse accuracy in speech with "idiocy" and find it "repulsive."

    Joshua
     
  2. JAMES2

    JAMES2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joshua:
    I'm not a minister of the Word of God, so I don't care if people take me seriously or not.
    No, it was not insulting for women for many centuries to be referred to as chairman or included under the term "mankind" etc. It does not distress me terribly, just the politically correct use of the so-called "inclusive" language bothers me.

    So, I suppose you would agree to inclusive language in the Bible as some have suggested. For example, in the Lord's prayer instead of saying "Our Father who art in heaven" change that to read "Our Parent in heaven." That is where this politically correct nonsense is leading and that I do find repulsive.

    By now you have probably guessed that I think a women being a minister is foolishness and I would not attend any so-called Christian church that had a woman "minister." Call me what you like, I don't agree with that concept at all and I never will.

    Besides, most all of the women "ministers" I have had discussions with,seem to be more interested in a political agenda like "women" rights (as if there are rights for men and rights for women, and not just individual rights for all members of the human race), they are pro death almost without exception, and in a lot of cases they are gay (which I find to be absolutely blasphemous. It is beyond me why any born again Christian would attend a church led by a practicing homosexual, male or female. It shows they do not understand Christianity or the gospel or the Bible. Furthermore, to say you are a "Christian minister" and a practicing homosexual is such a gross contradiction in terms I think God will reserve a special place in hell for those that engage in such blasphemy.

    Do I have anything personally against such people? No!!! I would pray that the Holy Spirit regenerate them so they can see their foolishness.
    James2

    [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
     
  3. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
    James, I don't understand why this upsets you so much. There are men and women who are members of the clergy, so clergyperson is the more accurate term. There are men and women who work for the police and fire departments, so police officer and firefighter are the more accurate terms for those professions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is one error; there are no women who are members of any biblical clergy, for the office of pastor is limited by God to men. Any women seerving in a pastoral position has not come to it by the call of God, but by the call of the flesh. To equate biblical office holders with secular professions is non sequitor par excellence! :rolleyes:
     
  4. JAMES2

    JAMES2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chris:
    You just uttered an example of ABSOLUTE TRUTH! And people try to tell me there is no such thing as absolute truth -- they absolutely know that!!!
    Why can't people see that to be a homosexual or a female and then claim to be a "minister" of the Word of God is such a gross contradiction.
    Just what we need. Some gay female, pro abortion, feminist, pretending to be a minister. Then have the youth leader playing obscene rap music, having rings hanging out of his ears, nose, lips and other places, hopping around with pro abortion signs advocating that shacking together is "my right" and advocating and supporting homosexuals. My, or my, where has the sanity gone!
    James2

    [ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]
     
  5. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's try to keep the thread on topic. Some baptist churches oradin women, some don't. For further discussion, see the plethora of discussions we've had on women in ministry.

    Joshua
     
  6. JAMES2

    JAMES2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joshua:
    Thanks for the tip, but I can't imagine why anyone would have an interest in the subject of "ordaining" women in the "ministry."
    Much to your relief, I will let this one go by.
    James2
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I find inclusivist language to be personally an afront. In the Bible, it is rewriting what God said, and I'd be real careful about that. God and Jesus are masculine in gender - always have been and always will be. No Bible version or denomination that prays to "Our Father/Mother who art in heaven" is correct. [​IMG]

    Now man-made labels? They are an irritant of the political correctness movement, but since they are not biblical, I can just get irritating but not self-righteous! :eek:

    Know some pc folks that get mad at using the word "human" because of "MAN" not woman. :confused:

    And "clergyperson" still has "SON" in it, so it is gender correct to be used just for males. :rolleyes:

    Like I said, OFFENDED at such inclusive language in hymns, bible versions, prayers, but just IRRITATED by the liberal feminazi attempts to emasculinate ALL of MANkind. Er, I meant huMANity. Oh, guess I just don't have enough estrogen . . . :D
     
  8. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    JAMES2 said:

    No, it was not insulting for women for many centuries to be referred to as chairman or included under the term "mankind" etc. It does not distress me terribly, just the politically correct use of the so-called "inclusive" language bothers me.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm not huge into any PC movement, but there is definitly a time when things need to change. For a long long time, "Negro" was a perfectly acceptable way to refer to African Americans, even among themselves. But now it has turned derogotory and offensive and we shouldn't use it. Same with "Oriental". The way I see it, whatever people want to be called, let them be called that. Our life should be about sharing Jesus to the world, not making sure people keep the names they had fifty years ago. Human and Fireman are two different things.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    For example, in the Lord's prayer instead of saying "Our Father who art in heaven" change that to read "Our Parent in heaven." That is where this politically correct nonsense is leading and that I do find repulsive.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I consider this completly different then gender inclusive language in the Bible. God has revealved himself as Father (even though He is certainly not a man) and that is how we should address Him. But when the Bible is talking about a generic person and says he, if women just can't understand that to include them, then the language should be changed. The language is not adequetly communicating what is should. Now, I'm on the side of keeping it singular (instead of 'they') so I don't see any obvious solution. Either we need to 'invent' a word that is singular and gender nuetral (my friend suggests 'ohm') or (and everyone will scream at this) should print real 'she' Bibles where everywhere it says he in the generic sense (so obviously not definite characters like Jesus or profecies about Him), we replace it with she. If we really backed up our claim that 'he' means 'he' and 'she', then we should be able to read the 'she' Bibles just as well because she can mean 'he' and 'she' too.

    As far as the liberal feminsist gay movement that we are all afraid, all my sisters and my wife and her sisters would prefer the gender inclusive solution if possible and they are all conservative, anti-gay and certainly anti-feminst people I know.
     
  9. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Paternoster is certainly prayed to our father, but where the Bible says /anthropos/ "person" is certainly the better translation than "man."

    It's not a matter of emasculation, it's a matter of accuracy. I still don't understand why this is troubling.

    As a side note, I'm curious - for those of you who went to seminary - about whether or not inclusive language was emphasized there. It certainly was at McAfee. Again, this is not some sort of "feminization" of the language. It is a recognition that the language we use as clergy is very important and consequently must be chosen with great care and precision so as to accurately represent God and our congregation.

    Joshua

    P.S. We say the "Our Father" in worship, but we also refer to God variously as "Father" and "Mother" in different contexts.
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of keeping things germane to the topic, what is the topic exactly? Are we speaking of inclusivity in general language or are we speaking of inclusivity relative to Bible translations? If it is the latter, wouldn't this topic be more fitting in the Bible version/translation area? And haven't we hashed and rehashed this to death?
     
  11. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom, I didn't know there was a past thread on inclusive language in translations.

    I intended for the focus of the topic to be the general use of inclusive language in conversation and in worship.

    Joshua
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the clarification Joshua. Are we speaking of inclusive language relating to God or relating to people, occupations, etc.?
     
  13. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    People, occupations, etc. although an emphasis of my seminary training was also inclusive language for God.

    Joshua
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I don't use the term "Clergyperson" because I never really use the term "Clergyman", so why would I need to update it? I usually refer to "ministers" which is far more generic, or pastors, or whatever.
    I don't have a problem with using inclusive language when referring to professions. For instance, if I'm talking about a surgeon, I have no problem refering to the person as "he or she". I share Dr. Bob's concern that, if you do not do this, you are assumed to be anti-female or non-intellectual. To me, it's really not that big of a deal. But then again, I'm a man, so what do I know? :D

    I do have a problem with refering to God in inclusive ways because I believe that takes Scriptural figuratives too literally.
     

Share This Page

Loading...