« Quirky Reviews & Wardrobes | Main | Peace in the Blogosphere, Good Will to Men »
December 09, 2005
On "Using the Greek” (Why Evangelicalism is Falling Apart)
Evangelicalism’s original basis of corporate identity was coherent only as long as it was fundamentalism--a conservative Protestant alliance based on a common confession of the "fundamentals of the faith," against Protestant liberalism. When it became Evangelicalism, an essentially apologetic movement with an orientation toward what is now called inclusiveness and a deadly fear of giving offense to the intellectual establishment from which its intelligentsia sought its accreditation, it immediately lost its original coherence.
Its new negative pole, opposition to fundamentalism rather than liberalism, and new positive pole, some sort of “orthodoxy,” cannot together generate enough binding force to keep the movement together. This weakness is the direct result of its progressive magisterium’s desire conform itself to the world rather than to seek out and reform itself according to the catholic faith, and the windy presumption of many of its more orthodox theologians that they actually represent it.
Do I have a formula for reform? I do. Evangelicals have always professed a strong devotion to the Bible. They must begin by ceasing to evade, and to deal honestly with, the numerous parts of it they don’t like. As I have noted elsewhere, the children have discovered egalitarianism using the very same tools their fathers, likewise using the Greek, employed to assert teetotalism and deny a number of other things. There needs to be a general movement away from self-assertion and self-definition towards shutting up and listening to older authorities, a re-entry into the life and mind of the Church as it was before Evangelicalism came along, and will exist when the movement is only a footnote to its history.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 01:21 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8345ab8d769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference On "Using the Greek” (Why Evangelicalism is Falling Apart):
» Mere Firestorm from Kara Ministries Weblog
Over at "Mere Comments", quite the little tempest has developed over this article by S. M. Hutchens. Hutches begins his critique of "Evangelicalism" with the observation, "Evangelicalism’s original basis of corporate identity was coherent only as long ... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 11, 2005 7:00:57 PM
Comments
Two words: Thomas Oden.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Dec 9, 2005 1:37:18 PM
Those children, having learned the circus acts in Greek after the pattern of their fathers, are merely the latest proof that a foundation of sola scriptura is a foundation of sand. For scripture is no authority at all where there is no authoritative human agency to interpret it. That was in fact what old style fundamentalism represented. Whether right- or wrong-headed, the fundamentalist "fathers" and those ordained by their hands, were truly a magisterium, for all practical purposes infallible in their interpretation of Holy Writ, such that their findings bound the consciences of the faithful.
What today is evangelicalism except a rejection of this storied (and to most a horribly embarrassing) past? It is not merely that "its progressive magisterium" desires to "conform itself to the world", but that there is in fact no magisterium at all. For the demon (private interpretation) let loose could only be contained for so long. The stout-hearted evangelical fathers (a.k.a., fundamentalists) bottled it up heroically. But, alas, they are mostly dead now. And their children are far more concerned with being "hip" and "relevant" than with carrying on an anachronistic (tho' thoroughly worthwhile IMO) fight with modernity.
Would that there was an "Evangelical Magisterium", an unequivocal voice to lead the way, to define Evangelical teaching for the Evangelical faithful, and ultimately give coherence to a movement that can no longer even define itself (except by what it is against, and that ain't much). But what you're asking for Mr. Hutchens is to put the demon back in the bottle. I wholeheartedly concur that ought be done, but have given up hope that it is any longer possible.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Dec 9, 2005 2:28:37 PM
I can't remember exactly the source of this little phrase (lost somewhere in the murks of my seminary education, I'm sure): "For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean nuda scriptura."
In other words, Calvin, Luther, and theri ilk did not rely only on scripture, but they went back ad fontes (to the sources). They actually read the early fathers of the church, who were now much more easily accessible thanks to Gutenburg. And they found that often the intevening theological developments lined up with neither the Bible or the Fathers.
Posted by: Rev Dave | Dec 9, 2005 3:07:08 PM
AMEN Mr. Hutchens!
Maybe I misunderstood Rev. Dave, but had the Reformers been paying complete attention to the works of the early Church Fathers and putting them into practice we would, today, be short a few denominations. Instead, it appears to me, they applied the same "sola scriptura" principle, and proof-texted the Fathers just as their children now do to Scripture.
My understanding is that Luther himself was in contact with Orthodox hierarchs and ultimately rejected what they offered.
Now we have a gazillion denominations ranging from the Assemblies of God to Willow Creek (an "association" or whatever). Some of these feel it unnecessary to even attempt to observe the Holy Days this year.
Sigh.
Posted by: Bec | Dec 9, 2005 3:33:17 PM
I'm sorry but you guys are ridiculous. I thought this magazine and this site was supposed to be somewhat "ecumenical". There's way too much evangelical-bashing on this site, much of which is unwarranted since evangelicalism is so broad--any attempt to characterize it is a gross, inaccurate generalization.
Yes, I am an evangelical and yes, there are some "strains" of evangelicalism which trouble me. But there's obviously a lot of good stuff happening within evangelicalism that I resonate with, which is why I still consider myself an evangelical.
If you're going to start bashing on a movement, please be very specific instead of making these huge overarching generalizations that are so broad that they are meaningless. There's a lot of stuff that Catholics and Orthodox believe that trouble me, but I'm wouldn't spout off on it on a site that claims to be ecumenical. I hope this can truly be "a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church" as stated on your home page. This site is becoming more and more of a pro-Orthodox, anti-everything-else site; if that is your intention, I would ask that you would change your mission statement to reflect that.
Posted by: Peter Kim | Dec 9, 2005 4:31:16 PM
Mr. Kim,
I would disagree with your assessment of the site as Pro-Orthodox and anti-everything else. I'm a Catholic, so I agree with much of the take on Evangelicalism, but there are lots of pieces that offend me, too. "Ecumenical" does not mean "never talk about your differences" but it does mean "talk about them with respect."
With respect to Rev. Dave, while much of Calvin and Luther's teaching lines up with the Fathers, much of it does not (eg, Calvin on the Eucharist).
Posted by: David Deavel | Dec 9, 2005 4:45:57 PM
"There needs to be a general movement away from self-assertion and self-definition towards shutting up and listening to older authorities"
Really? Why? So we can go back to the old anti-Semitism, or perhaps regulation of sex to a mere 51 allowed days per year, and then must be confessed as sin even if it is between spouses, no one enjoyed it, and it was specifically aimed at procreation? Or should it be that the Pope is infallible, even when there are two of them and they do not agree? Perhaps we can return to buying our way (or others') into Heaven? After all, these teachings all came from the very same Church Fathers you idolize.
Perhaps we would have fewer denominations if the Roman Church had followed Scripture, rather than focusing on temporal power and wealth to the detriment of her flock.
Yes, this is an intemperate post. No less intemperate than the one to which it responds.
Posted by: Steven Schmitt | Dec 9, 2005 4:55:33 PM
"I'm sorry but you guys are ridiculous. I thought this magazine and this site was supposed to be somewhat "ecumenical". There's way too much evangelical-bashing on this site, much of which is unwarranted since evangelicalism is so broad--any attempt to characterize it is a gross, inaccurate generalization."
Maybe I misunderstood Touchstone's mission, but I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day. So, the point isn't dialogue with Protestants, but rather understanding that Protestants are just another sign of the modern age rejecting catholic teachings. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 5:01:21 PM
Aren't Anglicans considered Protestants? After all, the founder of the Church was excommunicated by the Pope, and as far as I recall Anglicans are outside of salvation in the eyes of Rome because they are outside the Roman Church.
Of course, ecumenism is looking more and more like an attempt by Rome to re-assert its temporal authority. "No one goes to heaven unless the Pope says they are" -- as one ecumenically-minded priest put it to me recently.
Posted by: Steven Schmitt | Dec 9, 2005 5:23:07 PM
>I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day
Closer to the mark to say Easter Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. If in doubt review the backgrounds of the writers and editors. There is a marked Presbyterian presence for example.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 9, 2005 5:33:22 PM
This comment was indeed broad and overarching. I meant it to be--the product of hard, cold analysis with nothing whatever intemperate about it. It is based upon a lifetime personal experience of fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, the taking of several degrees from Evangelical seminaries, and years of serious study of its history and doctrine, including a doctoral dissertation on its principal theologian. I am a Protestant who does not believe every old authority is right, and carefully avoided saying anything that would give a reasonable person the opportunity to invent the fables and straw men upon which several of these respondents depend for their criticism.
Nor did I say everything was wrong with Evangelicalism, or that all parts of it are in equally bad condition. I write about a movement as a whole, as a chronicler might summarize a national history or a king's reign. It is possible to do such things accurately when knowledge of the subject of which one is writing is deep and intricate enough.
There are a number of conservative Protestants who are not Evangelicals in the sense I am using the term here. They can usually be known by their refusal to identify themselves with this movement except in a very qualified way.
(One will find that almost all of the "Evangelical-bashing" in Touchstone publications is mine. I do this because I'm trying to wake a few people up--to help them see what has been happening to their churches in the course of the last several generations. The changes have been radical and far-reaching, and have moved from the relatively innocent (e.g. teetotalism) to the grave and heretical (egalitarianism). This isn't "bashing"--it's an attempt at cancer surgery, or at least helping those who are willing to be helped.)
Posted by: smh | Dec 9, 2005 6:15:13 PM
Christopher asks,
"Maybe I misunderstood Touchstone's mission, but I always thought it was a place where Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and conservative Anglicans (those with some claim to catholic faith) could cooperate against the apostate issues of the day. So, the point isn't dialogue with Protestants, but rather understanding that Protestants are just another sign of the modern age rejecting catholic teachings. Am I wrong?"
You certainly are wrong brother - go back to the masthead where you can read “Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom — Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.”
And whilst I understand both Mr Hutchens’ rhetorical stance as well as his taken stance within US religious history of the past 50 years, I would like to point out that in Britain and its former colonies the word, “evangelical” had an honourable history reaching back into the 18th Century and stood for those noted for their orthodoxy and orthopraxis (in a post Reformation sense).
Where I agree with Mr Hutchens is that with the withering of “old fashioned” liberalism, we are now seeing the next lot of “evangelicals” sloughing off into new manifestations of liberalism, this applying whether we talk about the new perspective on Paul or the emerging church or open theism or mega churches with closed doors on Christmas Day, or the slippery slope of egalitarianism, or churches populated by people falling within the strictures of 1 Cor 6:9 and not being corrected (=disciplined) for such ungodly ways.
Within the context that I am familiar with (Presbyterian, Australia), we now never use the word “evangelical” without coupling it to “reformed”, and indeed we like “confessional” and orthodox” as well.
Posted by: David Palmer | Dec 9, 2005 6:17:28 PM
It is also, I believe, very important to add this: I am extremely careful about making specific prescriptions for Evangelicalism, and have in fact made very few of them. They amount to two: stop mishandling scripture--clear your consciences on this--and restore the Lord's Supper, no longer denying the Words of Institution, to its proper place in the service of worship. It seems to me that all the necessary reforms will flow from these in the course of time, when their meaning is given proper weight.
Evangelicalism is theologically weak-rooted--a very unformed thing--despite the spate of Evangelical theologies written in the last twenty or so years. Because of this the serious Evangelical theological thinker, who cannot simply "stay with" Evangelicalism as it is, has two very different paths open naturally before him, and upon which his thinking may proceed, a catholicizing, re-racinating, path and a liberalizing one in which the deracination continues until the plant is dead.
The catholicizing path may not lead him to Rome or Orthodoxy (it has not done this for me), but will link him to the history of the Church as a living authority, and hence ecumenize him with the conserving churches, catholic and protestant. This attitude, I believe, is what marks the Touchstone Protestant, who is not at all easy with Evangelicalism, especially with its intelligentsia.
Posted by: smh | Dec 9, 2005 7:02:50 PM
Ah yes, remember, the original "evangelicals" were those (we,, since I are one now!) pesky Lutherans! With the emphasis on being "born again", and that not being baptismal regeneration, and many other things, we no longer qualify! Now we are evangelical catholics or confessing evangelicals. Oh, for the good old days!
Posted by: Pr. Dave Poedel | Dec 9, 2005 7:11:56 PM
Mr. Hutchens and Mr. Nicoloso,
During time of year where we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace why not take a break from 'discussing' the problems a Christian group of which you are not a part of? We Evangelicals are certainly not immune from criticism, and I wouldn't deny you your voice, but perhaps a better use of our voices right now would be to join together and sing, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!"
We have many differences, and they matter, and I don't propose ignoring them. But I think a Mere Comments version of the WWI Christmas Truce would help us remember that we have so much more in common. And that it what I appreciate most about Touchstone.
David
Posted by: David | Dec 9, 2005 7:29:58 PM
Alas, David, if only we could.
But I have before me an Evangelical Bible (the TNIV) that makes the angels' song, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests"--"men" (anthropois) removed.
Who should give up his principles to join the angel choir? Will the egalitarian sing "men," or the rest of us sing "those"? Do you begin to see what kind of damage has been done by the innovators--what kind of wound they have inflicted upon the Church? It does not stop bleeding during Christmas. If anything, it gets worse.
The egalitarians, whose translation this is, constantly involve us in nothing less than the question of whether we worship the same God. They must consequently worship in their own places, and we will worship in ours. They should have thought of their inevitable estragement from Christendom before they changed the Bible. Or maybe they did.
Yours is a nice thought, but while there may be lulls in the battle, there can be no truce.
Posted by: smh | Dec 9, 2005 8:08:55 PM
This whole conversation makes me rather sad.
How wonderful if we could find unity within Christ, under the wise words of the Creed which was established during a time of unity, rather than insisting others not only take the creed but also must follow our interpretations of the various points.
The Early Church had it right, keeping things simple in regard to unity and thus communion. Evangelicals may have it wrong in many ways, but we're in a long line of such error, with many of these errors now being enshrined in the Churches we are supposed to embrace. The mote is in the eye of all the various traditions.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 9, 2005 8:12:13 PM
"How wonderful if we could find unity within Christ, under the wise words of the Creed which was established during a time of unity, rather than insisting others not only take the creed but also must follow our interpretations of the various points."
But the Creed wasn't created in a time of unity. It was created when the Arian heresy was tearing apart the Church and God's people vitally needed a statement of faith with ONE single interpretation that would continue to ensure the Church was steered down the right path forever.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 8:18:45 PM
I'm curious also. Why are the older authorities more trustworthy?
Did they lead holier lives? Were they more in tune with the Kingdom of God? Did the Holy Spirit inspire their interpretations then, but leave us to trust the words of men who lived during times of anything but peace?
Why in the 3rd millenium should I trust the thinkers of the 2nd millenium to have a better interpretation of the 1st millenium?
"Because I said so, so shut up" is not a very cogent argument for dismantling the call upon each Christian in each era to pursue the depths of Christ in prayer and study.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 9, 2005 8:19:07 PM
SMH, Greek "anthropois" doesn't refer exclusively to males, and so "men" isn't an ideal translation into modern English. Anyone with a modicum of training in Greek knows that "anthropois" is generally gender-neutral (someone wanting to ensure the idea of males would have used "andresi"). I think gender-neutral Bibles do a lot of inappropriate things, but this isn't one. The translation with "men" would have been fine few hundred years ago when English "men", although already not generally gender-neutral, was still used for the sense of human beings in general. However, should we be translating God's word into a dead idiom, or follow the proud traditions of Sts Cyril and Methodius and Stephen of Perm in translating it into the modern vernacular that is familiar to all?
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 8:22:44 PM
AFAIK, David, Mr. Hutchens is an Evangelical. That's why he self-identifies as the most "bashing" of the Touchstone editors toward Evangelicalism (it's true, BTW), and why he speaks so astutely upon it. I myself was up 'til only very recently an Evangelical, and I know well of the pervasive (no, not ubiquitous) problems of which I speak. I lacked the faith, that Mr. Hutchens has, in the reform of the thing, for I became convinced that the only way "back" was through a Fundamentalism, whose spirit, grit, and spunk I admire, but whose doctrines I quite frankly detest.
I say celebrate the coming of the Prince of Peace by meditating on what sacrifices will need to be made, what wounds we shall need to take upon our own bodies, completing the things lacking in the Sufferings of Christ, in order to make that promised Peace a reality.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Dec 9, 2005 8:23:46 PM
Christopher, a very good point there.
Then having established this creed, what other barriers are then raised to present unity?
What is sad now is that I can say this creed with the fullness of faith, and would die rather than deny this creed. Yet, that's not enough for today's churches to allow me to partake in communion.
I am of a lesser sort because while I would have unity with the earliest of Christians I am not allowed that same unity with their representatives over issues entirely left out of this unifying creed.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 9, 2005 8:24:54 PM
Indeed Patrick, but have you heard the modernized versions of the creeds--the ones used by Egalitarian churches? Would they, to celebrate Christmas, deign to say "for us men and our salvation he came down from heaven . . . and was made man"? Why should they? This would be just as contrary to their faith as the declarations that removed male representative headship and obscured the significance of the maleness of Christ would be to ours.
And for years we have had to listen to sad people, telling us how sorry they are that we are so mean and schismatic and unkind and rigid and unecumenical because we won't be nice and give a little, that is, go along with the changes they have instituted. After a while, one becomes, of necessity, hardened to that kind of appeal, sort of like people who live next to the railroad tracks and no longer hear the trains.
Posted by: smh | Dec 9, 2005 8:46:16 PM
Oh yes, and we have had to put up with people who tell us what we would understand if we had only a smattering of Greek, too. I normally refer them to Father Reardon.
Posted by: smh | Dec 9, 2005 8:51:44 PM
Unbelievable. You couldn't let it rest for even one hour.
You want to argue about Bible translations, about the finer points of Sola Scriptura, about the exact nature of the relationship between faith and works, fine, you can have it! Those arguments have been going on for some time now, I'm guessing they'll still be there in a few weeks. I’m not asking you to give up your fight, indeed I would probably agree with most of what you say. But there are better things to focus on this time of year.
I'll end my involvement in this matter with part of my favorite carol. I hope this is at least one thing we all can agree on.
"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel."
David
Posted by: David | Dec 9, 2005 9:13:25 PM
For Christopher: The best article I have read about "inclusive language" was written by Paul Mankowski, for Touchstone, about four years ago. You might find it on the archives.
I will add something to Mankowski's excellent analysis -- which shows that indeed "man" is, linguistically, an irreplaceable and natural translation (I won't try to do justice to it in a few short lines; it is full and closely argued and unassailable). It's this: the claim that "ho anthropos" is strictly gender-neutral is nonsense, for these reasons:
1. It is of masculine grammatical gender.
2. It is related, perhaps distantly, to "ho aner," adult male; utterly unrelated to "ha gyne," adult woman.
3. It is never the natural word used to refer to one woman.
4. It is analogous to Latin "homo," whose grammatical gender is also masculine, and is felt as more properly referring to males than to females.
5. Proof of 4 is the shift in that word's meaning from "person in general, particularly male person," to "adult male": cf. Italian "uomo," French "homme," Spanish "hombre".
6. So natural is the association of "adult male" with "person in general" that in many languages the indefinite pronoun is simply an unstressed form of the word for adult male: French "on," Portuguese "om," analogous to German "man," from "Mann".
7. Languages will adopt the word for adult male to mean person in general (and male in particular), or the word for person in general (and male in particular) to mean adult male: so Latin "vir," "adult male," is the same word as Old English "wer" (person in general; cf. werewolf); but Old English "guma" (man; warrior; cf. English "groom") is the same word as Latin "homo".
8. The question is not whether such words as "homo" and "anthropos" are masculine in force, but exactly how masculine they are. Proof of this comes when you ask whether it is conceivable that Pilate could have referred to Mary Magdalene and said, "Ecce homo!" rather than "Ecce mulier," "Ecce domina," or "Ecce femina."
9. In most languages, words for "woman" are function words that specify a type of human being -- that narrow the focus from genus to species. So, for instance, a woman suckles babies (Latin "femina"), or gives birth (Greek "gyne"). They are strictly delineated, separated, from the words for males AND the words for persons in general.
So those are arguments from the original language; Mankowski takes care of arguments from the receptor language. No other translation besides "man" conveys exactly the same idea. It's a brilliant article he wrote.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 9, 2005 9:23:34 PM
Tony and others piqued by his reference to Mankowski,
The article is indeed in the archives, here:
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-08-033-f
Posted by: Fr. William Mouser | Dec 9, 2005 9:32:44 PM
Patrick, divisions among Christians are a scandal. We should all pray for an end to them. That being said, we cannot pretend that the Great Schism and the Reformation never happened. They did, and as a consequence we mean different things when we confess the Creed. I'm Orthodox. When I confess "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" I mean something very specific: the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, where issues are resolved in conciliar fashion by bishops who are in the apostolic succession. My Roman Catholic brothers say the same words, but invest them with different meaning. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church they confess is the Church whose head on earth is the bishop of Rome, who speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra. My Reformed sister has yet a different meaning when she says the Creed. My Baptist brother differs from all of the above. Now if truth means anything, we cannot all be right, but we are all obliged to be faithful as best we know. The reality is that if we confess the same Creed but mean different things, we aren't confessing the same Creed. Far better to love one another and to pray for one another than to accede to a least common denominator faith in the interest of superficial unity.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Dec 9, 2005 9:43:22 PM
Mr Esolen, for that translation to be acceptable English would have to maintain the double meaning of "man" as both male and "human being" that it had for much of its history and which Greek had. Language changes naturally, and the meaning of "male" is no longer strong in ordinary English parlance. The continual translation of anthropos as "man" shows an unrealistic prescriptivist idea about language, and prescriptivists simply never win.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:04:04 PM
>for that translation to be acceptable English would have to maintain the double meaning of "man" as both male and "human being" that it had for much of its history
And it does in circles that aren't concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 9, 2005 10:11:26 PM
Furthermore, this is a folk etymology: "In most languages, words for "woman" are function words that specify a type of human being -- that narrow the focus from genus to species. So, for instance, ... a woman gives birth (Greek "gyne")."
While they look similar in Greek, the words for "generation/birth" and "woman" come from separate Proto-Indo-European roots. In PIE, the first began with a palatal velar and the second with a labiovelar. Those two consonants merely happened to fall together in Greek. I'm sorry to see Mr Mankowski pitching this etymology, since it has been frequently debunked (in fact, I just yesterday saw this in Sihler's "Language History")
And the identification of words for human being with males is a feature of some Indo-European languages. The Uralic languages, for instance, generally maintain a very firm lexical division between the concepts. Being trained in historical linguistics, I simply cannot see these arguments to hold water.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:12:37 PM
"And it does in circles that aren't concerned with being conformed to the Spirit of the Age."
Mr Gray, language change is entirely natural. Your remark is equivalent to saying that because our society no longer speak Proto-Germanic, we've made some kind of terrible compromise.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:13:53 PM
>Your remark is equivalent to saying that because our society no longer speak Proto-Germanic, we've made some kind of terrible compromise.
Not really. Change which is driven by ideology naturally reflects the ideology which underlies the change. Rejecting the presuppositions of that ideology will logically lead one to reject the change.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 9, 2005 10:18:32 PM
You can reject the change all you want but, as I said, prescriptivists ultimately never win.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:21:49 PM
>You can reject the change all you want but, as I said, prescriptivists ultimately never win.
I remember when the Bolsheviks claimed inevitability as well. Great argument if your opponents are fool enough to buy into it.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 9, 2005 10:26:34 PM
Well, Mr Gray, can you ever show an example of prescriptivists winning in the long term? The author of the Appendix Probi tried hard to protect Latin, but in the end so much of Europe ended up speaking Romance languages. Greeks held on to quaint language for a long time in the form of Katharevusa, but it's finally bit the big one and modern Greek isn't bound by the prohibitions of the ancient grammarians. Irregardless of the human causes, from a perspective of hundreds of years language change can be seen to be morally neutral. I'm sure I'm not the only student of historical linguistics who thinks (like many mathematicians) that these fascinating and perpetual permutations only speak to the glory of God.
I can't find the folk etymology of "gyne" in the article of Paul Mankowski, S.J., so I assume that it is Mr Esolen's interpolation.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:32:45 PM
>Well, Mr Gray, can you ever show an example of prescriptivists winning in the long term?
Well, Mr Culver, how do you derive from your statement that the case of one particular sort of change, consciously pursued by an anti-Christian mindset, will inevitably come to be accepted in common use? Or will it wind up like Teddy Roosevelt's conscious attempts to alter the English language?
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 9, 2005 10:35:59 PM
Mr Gray, these inclusive translations get the support they do because people are subconsciously aware of the diminishing use of "man" to refer to human beings in general. Even Rev Mankowski notes in his article that its lexical scope has decreased significantly. Granted, the double use does survive in literary speech, but generally language change occurs through a much lower stratum of the language.
Posted by: Christopher Culver | Dec 9, 2005 10:42:04 PM
"The reality is that if we confess the same Creed but mean different things, we aren't confessing the same Creed."
Indeed, and therein lies the problem. I wonder, however, if it is our own sense of superiority which keeps our definitions from defining our unity.
Right now the various denominations and churches have volumes of explanations to define what the creed means. However, in their wisdom the creed wasn't volumes long, it was quite short, enough to get at the heart of our faith, knowing there would be distinctions in each community with other matters.
I wonder if our unity is not found in insisting on our own path but letting go, so that I can, in faith, accept the Orthodox interpretations as valid, accept the Catholic interpretations as valid, and accept the Protestant interpretations as valid. Certainly not one of us has a mastery of the fullness of Christ, and so we're all wrong in some respect. However, in faith, we all pursue the depths of Christ, finding salvation through the grace poured down on us, finding new life even in this present life. This is a unified pursuit, with distinctions of worship, which, if it honors Christ above all things, seems acceptable.
It seems that if we let go, if we empty ourselves and allow the unity to be discovered within the nature of Christ, all the other things won't disappear, but they will be relegated to something other than preventing unity.
I'm a person who fits in with the Emerging Church, yet my heart and being resonates more with the volumes of the Philokalia than anything I've ever read. Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me that above all things there is only the pursuit of Christ, anything which hinders or separates is a work of the enemy who wishes to divide either by making us too lax or too demanding. Our call in Christ is to be unified to those who are also called to Christ, however they choose to offer their praises weekly or daily.
Mr. Hutchens, there is certainly wonderful merit in your words. I've spent a great deal of time in my life offering similar critiques. Yet, I can't help but think of Luther, or any of the other reformers. They made unacceptable interpretations in their eras, yet we find something like Vatican II essentially saying much Luther tried to assert. The efforts of reformers have always offered new life to the Church, whether it be Luther, or Anthony, or Benedict or Wesley. The Church has listened, and while traditions should be honored they are not inviolate especially if they have erred at some point in the reflection of Christ.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 9, 2005 10:56:57 PM
I can't help but think of Luther, or any of the other reformers. They made unacceptable interpretations in their eras, yet we find something like Vatican II essentially saying much Luther tried to assert.
The Church is not split over any doctrine except for one: whether or not the Church may be split.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | Dec 9, 2005 11:43:29 PM
Christopher,
Yes, "gyne" is my fault. I will have to look it up again. But I'll bet that I have mistaken which function of females it originally denoted.
Mankowski shows that you're wrong when you describe this change as natural -- or even when you assert that the change has occurred. I notice how people speak when they aren't under political pressure -- or how naive people speak, who don't even notice the political pressure. (Mankowski makes some of these points):
1. Nobody misunderstands "mankind". Spontaneous errors in use should arise, if the word really has been taken over by another. Nobody hears a phrase "the origins of man" and thinks only of adult males: and that phrase is common in popular science. Nobody hears "pleased as man with men to dwell," in the hymn cited above, and thinks that Jesus spent his life in a male barracks. Nobody is confused by "He who laughs last, laughs best," or "Man proposes, God disposes," or "the heart of man" or innumerable other phrases and constructions.
2. "Man" is still a productive morpheme. This would certainly not be the case if it were causing confusion, or if its function had been lost. So we have "airman," "seaman," "man-made," "man-eating," etc. "Defenseman" is used in many sports, even when played by women and girls, without awkwardness or embarrassment. In field hockey, you can talk, without misunderstanding or unintentional comedy, of being penalized for having an extra "man" on the field.
3. "Those," "all," "persons," "human race," and so forth do not really translate "man". Some of them are vague pronouns that could refer to any beings, human or otherwise; or to human beings, without conceiving of them as united in any ontological way; or to human beings, united only in so far as they are in a collection. But "man" is a collective that is also a singular unity. This is actually a linguistic point that touches upon the profoundest doctrines of Christianity: we have been made subject to death by the sin of one man, and have been redeemed by the obedience of Christ, one Man. We are not in either case just separate human beings corraled into a collective; we are also a unity, a singular unity -- as in these stark contrasts: man and beast, man and angel, man and God.
4. We are even now, in popular speech, adopting masculine words to refer to "people in general". On any college campus, you will hear kids of both sexes referring to groups of their friends as "guys," without confusion -- though they will NEVER say, of one female, "I saw some guy walking down the street." Thus "guy," in that lower linguistic register, has become roughly comparable in use to Latin "homo". The same process has long been at work in the word "kid". I'll have to look this up, but it seems to me that the word originally denoted children of either sex indiscriminately, but now, in certain contexts, it refers in particular to boys or males (thus the process has been moving in the other direction from that of "guy" -- but always between the well-established poles). So, for instance, if you are talking about a twenty-year-old rookie on your baseball team, he's "a good kid"; not so if you are talking about a young woman on a soccer team. I've been noticing this oddity for years.
5. Some languages have "third" terms, denoting "human beings in general," but look more deeply at these .... German has "der Mensch," built from the noun "Mann", turned adjectival, "maennisch". How neutral is that noun? Well, the pronoun that will refer to it is masculine, as are other words in special constructions: consider Schiller's Ode to Joy: "Alle Menschen werden Brueder" ("all men will become brothers").
6. The real objection to the use of collective-unitive "man" is not at all linguistic but political and theological. Here's where the deep trouble lies. Christianity is not egalitarian in the way that the feminists and their fellow-travelers want it to be. To abolish "man" from the translations is just a sign of what the critics want to do to the masculinity of Jesus Christ (simply happenstance, we are told), or to the image of God as Father (culturally conditioned), or to male headship in the Church and in the home (blasted patriarchy).
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 10, 2005 7:04:28 AM
>Mr Gray, these inclusive translations get the support they do because people are subconsciously aware of the diminishing use of "man" to refer to human beings in general.
If you believe that you really are kidding yourself.
Posted by: David Gray | Dec 10, 2005 7:58:56 AM
And if these discussions are to take place at all, what better forum than Touchstone? -- a locus drawing on a range of believers, with some deep veins of scholarship, that has never claimed to be "What Evers who go along to get along," or a journalistic Christmas card (tiptoeing off to cancel the subscription should that prevail...)
On the other hand, deep aesthetic and philosophical differences displayed here -- differences in breadth, rigor, and evident political and psychosocial agenda as well as content, which leapfrog themselves as society incorporates the products of the recent educational enterprise -- convince me that division and demands for acknowledgement among people who call themselves Christians will continue. Some, propelled by enthusiasm, confusion, anger, or genuine conversion, will cross Rivers in either direction. But for the most part, without some major Divine tap of the dominoes, I do not see the reform Mr. Hutchens outlines happening in the current institutional arrangement. Certainly when not only Scripture but The Fathers and the Creeds are becoming multiplied fodder for a wider field of individual interpretation outside Tradition, and teeth-gritting deconstruction to support accompanying alliances.
So it's Tares and Wheat, traditionally interpreted as describing the church in this age, however that searing parable plays out. One can only pray earnestly and with some justified fear root around for the spiritual botanical soil to grow as wheat.
Simple practicality may suggest that someone who has read Mr. Hutchens a few times can expect either to savor or dislike his brave and radical perspective, especially notable in view of his ardent personal refusal to abandon the Protestant world to the currents he describes.
Posted by: dilys | Dec 10, 2005 8:40:42 AM
You guys have too much time on your hands.
Posted by: Fr. Stephen Lourie | Dec 10, 2005 8:56:47 AM
I don't know why anyone would be shocked at Mr Hutchens attacks. He is excellent at finding the problems in other movements while generally ignoring the one in the movement he associates with.
I certainly don't have a problem with his desire to remove "cancer," but the attitude of the articles doesn't seem to be that of a loving doctor.
Posted by: Barry | Dec 10, 2005 9:08:27 AM
Patrick,
Re: "I'm a person who fits in with the Emerging Church, yet my heart and being resonates more with the volumes of the Philokalia than anything I've ever read. Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me that above all things there is only the pursuit of Christ, anything which hinders or separates is a work of the enemy who wishes to divide either by making us too lax or too demanding. Our call in Christ is to be unified to those who are also called to Christ, however they choose to offer their praises weekly or daily."
The Philokalia (translated "love of the beautiful") are considered to be "Advanced Texts" for Orthodox Christians. There is much profit to the study and application of the teachings in the Philokalia, but also many dangers if this study is undertaken without the guidance of a spiritual Elder (or Father Confessor)or if the texts are applied out of the context of the liturgical life in the Church. Chief among these dangers is what the Orthodox call "plani" in Greek, "prelest" in Russian. Plani/Prelest is spiritual delusion. I recently read of some Greek monks who referred to the Philokalia as the Philoplaneia (love of delusion) in reference to to those who in ready eagerness and heedlessness of the dangers attempt to tackle these advanced texts on their own.
Your saying: "Their words of faith, of prayer, of discretion, say to me..." No, Patrick, the writings of the Saints in the Philokalia say what they say.
I'm sure you can proof text some of their words to make your point, but if the Philokalia says anything, it says that one must cleave unto the Orthodox Church and stay away from the teachings of heretics, including Protestants, "Emergent" or otherwise.
A hard teaching, but then again the Lord came "not to bring peace but a sword."
I would encourage you not only to study the Philokalia under the guidance of a spiritual elder in the Orthodox Church, but also the Holy Scriptures. You might learn something.
Joe (a former evangelical Protestant)
Posted by: joe | Dec 10, 2005 9:29:00 AM
Patrick,
A proof text:
The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 10 and verse 34:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Posted by: joe | Dec 10, 2005 9:44:23 AM
Re: "The efforts of reformers have always offered new life to the Church, whether it be Luther, or Anthony, or Benedict or Wesley. The Church has listened, and while traditions should be honored they are not inviolate especially if they have erred at some point in the reflection of Christ."
It is easy to say that “the Word of God—not some new revelation or personal opinion—may correct or supplement what the Church has always believed,” but it is in fact the opinion of a person or group of persons about the Word of God that is set against the continuing tradition. This is what John Henry Newman called the tyranny of “private judgment,” which is not unlike heresy—from haeresis, meaning choice.
- Richard John Neuhaus (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0308/public.html#haeresis)
Posted by: joe | Dec 10, 2005 10:44:12 AM
"Men" and "man" take on gender depending on context. In the English language, we have a number of word pairs consisting of a marked, gender-specific noun and an unmarked noun that is gendered when used of specific entities and nongendered when used generically. Examples: dog/bitch, cat/tomcat, god/goddess, cow/bull. You can say "dog kennel" without people coming to the conclusion that female dogs can't be kept there, or "he herds cows for a living" without people thinking that his entire herd is female. Also, some words come in gendered and nongendered triples, i.e king/queen/monarch and sow/boar/pig. Man/woman is of the former, not the latter kind. This is simply the way the English language works and why "men" is a far better translation of anthropois than a generic pronoun.
For example, when numerous references were made to "the race of men" in the Lord of the Rings film, no one was wondering why women were excluded, especially as the story very blatantly includes women. But by contrast, "woman" is specifically marked for gender, so "the race of women" has a far, far different connotation in our language. Likewise, if one hears on the radio that a man-eating tiger is on the loose, no one assumes that women and children are safe. So it is quite obvious that "man" and "men" retain their gender-neutral meanings in our language when used generically, regardless of the taboos enforced by the establishment.
The problem with egalitarianism isn't that it's trying to be gender-neutral. It's that in trying to be gender-neutral, they strip certain passages of their meaning and make them far more ambiguous by replacing singulars with plurals or by replacing specific references to man as a whole with ambiguous pronouns that don't have the same universal connotations, e.g. "those on whom his favor rests" means something different than "man, on whom his favor rests."
Posted by: Josh S | Dec 10, 2005 11:24:51 AM
Joe, good advice. Except having read through the philokalia and finding my love and devotion for Christ expanding far beyond what I ever expected, I suppose I'll trust the fruit of the Spirit from my reading rather than the advice of someone who does not know me.
Then, also, if you believe the writers of the Philokalia would argue for cleaving to anything except Christ, abandoning anything which interferes or deludes or distracts, then I suspect you haven't read through these writers with proper guidance. There is nothing apart from me and Christ. Indeed, the whole of the philokalia suggests that it is anathema to judge the faith of another Christian, or to dare to limit the reading of Spiritual things. They honor the writings, and having gone through all the volumes I never found anything resembling your suggestion. So pardon me if I will keep on reading them as they seem to indicate rather than depend on the authority of an intermediary to tell me how to think. The Spirit will teach me all things, and Christ will make up for those things I seem to miss.
The Philokalia is not magic or complex texts, hard to interpret. I'm not sure what would make them have the character of such to anyone else, except for the purpose of control.
This sort of advice adds to another thought which went through my mind. I wonder why we are so bothered by how others appropriate Christ. I think of the woman at the well, who Jesus met even if she was of the wrong sort. In all likeliehood she was not ever included in the church at Jerusalem, for she and those who believed in Jesus could not worship as the Jews wanted. Yet Jesus brought her into the fold.
It is so easy to act like the disciples did, demanding not only acceptance of Christ, but also our own approaches, even if, like Judaism, the practices are long ingrained in our worship. But why? Why do we demand others approach Christ the same way we do? Jesus never approached anyone the same way as another, and demanded different things of different people. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is a wonderful text which illustrates how there was intentionally not a fixed set of rules and regulations involved in worshipping Christ. "Let there be differences, as long as these basic things are met," James said.
However, I see in all of this little more than a thirst for power. We want to control Christ, we want everyone to match our own sensibilities, we want to manage and orchestrate the faith of others so that we will be justified.
And that is the heart of the Church splits. It's about power, and the seeking after power by men through the centuries, grasping for temporal control in the name of the One who has eternal control. This is what caused the Schism, and the schisms since. We grasp after being god all in the purported service who did not need to do that but rather emptied himself. As Peter of Damaskos says, "Again it is not Authority which is bad, but the love of Authority" and far too much Church politics has been defined by the love of authority more than the love of Christ.
Joe, continuing tradition itself is a result of opinions by men who at a certain point in history set up certain methods or approaches. The Catholic Church decided to include the filioque clause, without regard to Tradition. Other Churches have set up other decisions, not to pursue Christ, but to establish authority.
What I cleave to is the Faith of the Fathers, communion with Paul and the Apostles. There is tyranny of private opinions to be sure, but there is also tyranny of old habits. But there is freedom in Christ.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 10, 2005 11:29:45 AM
