« D-Day June 6 (for Marriage?) | Main | Vendors at the World Cup Games »
May 05, 2006
A Dog’s Life
With regard to a certain Evangelical publishing concern, a
Catholic friend wrote, “I don't understand [its] fanaticism
on inclusive language. What do they get
from it? What gives? Do they also send Gloria Steinem a birthday card? Why in the hell should they care what feminists think of
them? Or are they run by a bevy of
feminists themselves?”
My answer was the old, and I think entirely correct, fundamentalist observation
that the inner dynamic of the main stream of the Evangelical intelligentsia has
from its beginnings in the forties rested upon the desire, both rabid and
unadmitted, to prove to the liberal establishment, to the Menckens and Fosdicks
and their progeny, that it is NOT fundamentalist--that it is, by the criteria that
establishment establishes, bright, learned, and urbane. The upper portion
of Evangelicalism has a permanent crick in its collective neck from looking
over its shoulder to see if the liberals approve, exulting over every bone thrown from that table. When feminism came along as a central feature of
that confession, these Evangelicals, as one would expect, grabbed every bit of
it that they could possibly jam into the "biblical equality" bag,
dragged it home, and began stuffing it into their children.
What has this gained them from their masters? By and
large, condescending tolerance, tolerance as one might tolerate a flatulent
spaniel that is, his aroma notwithstanding, an excellent retriever.
Many in this same group of Evangelicals now seem to have sensed that there is
also something in “ecumenical orthodoxy” they wish to get in on--not quite the Touchstone
variety, of course, which would be a bit, well, severe, but something
friendlier that they can join (or start) in a hail-fellow-well-met sort of
way--complete with their egalitarianism. How nice it would be to get validated not only by the liberals, but the
Catholics and Orthodox, too--to be admired not only by Wither, Frost, and
Devine, but by Hingest and Dimble as well. To be sure, the old C. S. Lewis figurehead may have to have some more
embarrassing parts cut away, as was necessary to make it presentable in
egalitarian company, but this is the sort of operation they are used to.
It reminds me of a dog I once knew who, knowing he wasn’t allowed on the couch, would sidle up to it bottom first, place his rump tentatively on one of its far corners, then by degrees push his whole body up on the cushions, grinning ingratiatingly in Golden Retriever fashion at anyone who happened to be watching. His owners actually let him do this for company because it was so amusing, but once the feat was accomplished, off he went with a resounding swat on his ever-wagging backside.
Posted by S. M. Hutchens at 09:38 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834677a2c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Dog’s Life:
» The upper portion of Evangelicalism has a permanent crick in its collective neck from looking over its shoulder to see if the liberals approve from SharperIron
At Mere Comments, S.M. Hutchens affirms a fundamentalist assumption about (New) Evangelicalism.
... [Read More]
Tracked on May 5, 2006 10:11:56 AM
» Finding Fashionable Friends and Foes from The Japery
Thomas Albert Howard (in Books & Culture) and Wheaton prof. Alan Jacobs (First Things) write in support of Wheaton and other Evangelical colleges hiring Catholics, rather than firing them, as Wheaton did with TNP contributing editor Josh Hochschild. Ho... [Read More]
Tracked on May 9, 2006 12:59:46 PM
» What are Evangelicals like? from Present Matters
Well, says Stephen Hutchens, theyre sort of like dogs who arent allowed on the couch, but try to sidle their way up before getting swatting and having to retreat.
I imagine that wouldnt be your first analogy. Especially if you w... [Read More]
Tracked on May 10, 2006 2:36:44 PM
Comments
Dr. Hutchens,
I agree that this disposition can incline one to the bad ends you describe. However, it can have its advantages. Here's the outline of an argument:
The desire to be liked is often associated with making oneself and one's positions as palatable as possible to others. It is also often conjoined with a genuine liking for other people.
On the other hand, the person of irascible temper tends to hold fast to the truths that he knows and to refuse to budge from these merely for the sake of what he feels is an unnecessary or artificial bonhomie. These folks aren't typically as personally attractive as the former (accomodating) personalities.
If the love of Jesus and truth are strong in each, both can be effective witnesses. I'm glad the Body has plenty of both types. (I tend more toward the first but I admire my younger brother very much because he is more of the second.)
If the love of Jesus is, uh, not so strong, the former simply become squishy sell-outs and the latter lonely, prickly rocks.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | May 5, 2006 11:06:22 AM
Spot on, Dr. Hutchens. Hence the urge to proclaim that C.S. Lewis was an "evangelical," i.e., one of us: so urbane, so well-educated! If only he didn't enjoy smoking and drinking so much...
Posted by: Bill R. | May 5, 2006 12:01:20 PM
I think there is definitely this aspect of it going on in many places and for many in academia. It is nice to be liked, and nice to be respected by the supposed guardians of Academia. Sort of the same thing goes on with conservative Supreme Court justices becoming less conservative over the years.
However, not everyone is like this. A good number of Evangelical scholars are, well, evangelical. While some people get hung up on inclusive language changes, some of which is indeed worth getting hung up on, others don't mind pursuing changes so as to have a wider conversation. They want to drop the barriers to more substantial conversations.
To be honest, a great number of Evangelical scholars I've come across aren't trying to be lapdogs at all. They actually believe what they're saying and following their convictions.
Fuller Seminary, for instance, is built on the fact there are very good scholars who are passionate about a faithful Evangelical Christianity, and have no interest in trying to fit in at more conservative schools. That's why it gets insulted by folks on both sides of the ideological aisle. They do what they do without caring what Fundamentalists of any persuasion have to say about it. Nothing gets a fundamentalist more mad than being ignored.
Posted by: Patrick | May 5, 2006 12:32:11 PM
Patrick,
On the basis of my experience, I'd have to disagree with your comment about the Fundamentalists. They don't care if you ignore them. Most don't really want to argue with you, and they'd honestly prefer if you let them alone as well.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | May 5, 2006 2:42:57 PM
Agreed, Gene. The question any fundamentalist will ask is: is it Biblical? What's being ignored here is not the fundamentalist, but rather the fundamentals.
Posted by: Bill R | May 5, 2006 4:41:10 PM
The italicized statements below are from Fuller Theological Seminary’s 2004-2005 Catalog:
The Fuller community is aware of the fact that the role of women is a matter of controversy in many denominations, churches, and parachurch movements. The seminary seeks to nurture its ties with the whole Body of Christ, including those Christian individuals and groups who presently hold alternative views on the role and ministries of women. While the seminary encourages discussion and study of this issue, under no conditions may the authority of the classroom be used to challenge the calling of any student on the basis of gender. The seminary expects all who teach in its programs to honor its commitment to this point.
That is to say, people who hold “alternative” views to Fuller’s on the matter of women’s ministry may not teach here (this implication fully brought out in the last sentence of the next paragraph), unless they are willing to act against their principles.
"As members of the Joint Faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, we are committed to the use of nondiscriminatory language in all areas of the community’s life. We recognize that many women and men no longer find ‘man,’ ‘men,’ and ‘mankind’ acceptable as generic terms. We understand that such exclusive language, though once normative in our speaking and writing, now tends increasingly to alienate a substantial group of people. We wish to challenge patterns of language that may be doing harm even when harm is inflicted unconsciously and without intention. As Christians desiring to support human equality, we intend to avoid exclusive language which might express or encourage discrimination within the church or society. We pledge ourselves as faculty and encourage students, staff members, and administrators to use language which includes women and men in all our teaching, writing, witness, and worship."
Which is to say, traditional English is exclusivist and discriminatory. Those who still use it are either ignorant of the harm they are causing, or viciously doing it on purpose. We believe in human equality, so the whole faculty pledges itself to inform the former and bring pressure to bear on the latter by using its all its authority in every seminary situation to teach that those who will not use what is called inclusive language, whatever doctrinal convictions they might have against it, offend against charity, deliberately harming and alienating those for whom Christ died. Believers who knowingly use non-egalitarian language are bad Christians, and we intend to remind them of it at every opportunity.
Do it this way, and you cannot be accused of the outright stifling traditional Christians or of banning them from campus, even though you in effect do so--and you can retain the vital patina of Niceness, so important in the Evangelical world.
Thus Fuller, whose statements on these subjects seem to be something of a model for schools of its type, forges fearlessly ahead with an enormously bright and pious mind of its own, thoroughly Evangelical, thus offending the left, and thoroughly egalitarian, thus offending the right. Which, to the Touchstonian mind, would seem to be the fair equivalent of regarding itself as fully Christian, thus offending the pagans, and thoroughly Arian, thus offending the Athanasians.
Posted by: smh | May 5, 2006 5:09:09 PM
Bill R.--the problem for the people Mr. Hutchens described is not Lewis's smoking and drinking. The problem is that he had some embarrasing "conservative" traits, and in particular he failed to sufficiently transcend his male dominated society and purge his imagination of chauvinism. The thought police of the late 20th-21st centuries have found in his many writings some disturbing remarks...
Posted by: DK | May 5, 2006 5:18:15 PM
I just saw a number of movie reviews spoken in the language of the common people and designed to appeal to them and draw them in (what a religion should be doing). And none of them used inclusive language--it was always "Man" or "Mankind" that needed to be saved or --as in the Divinci Code ad--"Mankind" is going to have its history shaken.
I am sort of a media buff (like so many Americans whose language is formed by it) and after spending some time immersed in it-- to then read an academic book which uses the word "humankind" ad nauseum is to feel that one is now dealing with snobby, eltists wearing verbal bell-bottom pants from a past era. The media is at least using what has been the language which was passed on spontaneously by the people and still sounds "normal " to average people (otherwise the media propagandists wouldn't stick to it). Thus to deride people who do not like the sound of or the conscious elitist manipulation of "inclusive" language as "vicious" or "discrminatopry" (as one posting did) is the height of academic arrogance and fatheadedness.
It is the French who have an academy of language dictators--the beauty and strength of English is that it has been more rooted in actual people's usage of it without conscious manipulation by our "betters."
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan | May 5, 2006 5:59:34 PM
Dr. Hutchens, that's pretty much it. Though in more practical terms professors encourage using "people" rather than "men" in papers and otherwise make very little note of gender as it concerns any ministry role.
Fuller's problem, of course, is that it is so terribly Californian, with all that means, including egalitarianism and a tendency towards wearing shorts in class. This isn't quite in the same category as the dog trying to sidle onto the couch. More like the dog who gets tired of being swatted and runs off into the forest to lead the pack, his great throat a-bellow.
Posted by: Patrick | May 5, 2006 7:05:12 PM
Deacon John,
You are absolutely right about that -- it's mainly the academic thought police and their apparatchiks in church bureaucracies who are doing the damage, both to the language and to the deposit of faith. I'm amused by the fact that Fuller Seminary polices its language with such rigor. Somebody should tell them that there's a Dante translation out there, published by a famous secular house (that House would be Random), that not only cheerfully dismisses inclusive language in the poetry, it cheerfully dismisses inclusive language in the introduction, the glosses, the appendices, and the notes! And do you know the extent of my wrangling with them over this? Absolutely none. And to this day nobody, not even an academic, has come to me to say, "Hey, pal, what's with using 'man' in that hurtful way?" Nobody cares -- except for the thought police. And they have reason to care; they know well that the issue is not simply linguistic. I will go further and say that their attempt to flatten out our language is itself unjust and unscriptural.
Also, an aside -- though I've posted this before, it bears repeating. So NATURAL is the association of the male with "people-in-general" and the female with "women-specifically" that young folks, even though they've been brought up to use the politically correct generalities (e.g., "humankind"), have invented a new one all their own: "guys", meaning in the first instance "guys," but in the second instance "people, regardless of sex".
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 5, 2006 9:21:19 PM
Does not Fuller also tolerate the teaching of "Open Theology"? If God doesn't know the future then it makes sense that the language he might have inspired others to use in the past would not be necessarily normative for all time. Thus these open theologians have no anchor in Scripture to keep them from being blown by whatever wind the world brews up.
Whenever I hear a preacher say "him or her" and the like, or invert the order of sexes , "sisters and brothers", I sense surrender.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 5, 2006 9:23:20 PM
Invert the order of the sexes, like when someone says, "Ladies and gentlemen," instead of "Gentlemen and ladies"?
Posted by: Jennifer K | May 5, 2006 9:55:09 PM
Tony, you're right. In a way I think some of the tendencies have to do with an overreaction of sorts in which some are so eager to get past what has been sexism they're willing to press the points farther than needed.
Though I'm not sure young people are the best indicators for proper language use, for example I doubt we would encourage the prevalence of 'gay' or 'retard' as used in the younger folks vernacular. But in general you're right. Most people just don't care.
What Fuller is interested in is to be aware of the "weaker brother" in situations. There are people who are really put off by the overuse of masculine pronouns, and there are women who are sensitive to the oft abused patriarchy of Christianity. There is a balance, and if it has gone too far one way now, it is because it had gone too far in other directions before. In the same way they changed the name of their School of World Mission to the School of Intercultural Studies. Not because they changed their goals, but because sometimes words can become barriers to these goals.
Fuller is entirely pragmatic in such things. Other people and places prefer their words to their goals.
Christopher, I could be mistaken with a particular professor but I'm certain that as an institution Fuller doesn't espouse "open theology" so it's not quite right to lump all the professors there into that category. I'm also certain that there is no surrender to be found at Fuller.
Posted by: Patrick | May 5, 2006 10:14:22 PM
Invert the order of the sexes, like when someone says, "Ladies and gentlemen," instead of "Gentlemen and ladies"?
No. "Ladies and Gentlemen" is the traditional phrasing. It would stand out as odd to say "Gentlemen and Ladies". However, in almost all other instances where both sexes are mentioned the masculine precedes the feminine: men and women, boys and girls, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husband and wife. To reverse the order in those instances stands out as forced.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 5, 2006 10:46:54 PM
My pet peeve is pronoun agreement. It drives me nuts to hear people say, "Everyone did their duty"--as in Nelson's famous Trafalgar signal, "England expects that everyone [every man] will do their [his] duty".
People who insist on butchery of the language in the name of some ephemeral "gender justice" obviously aren't quite as certain of their own "gender equality" as they would like us to believe.
Which brings me to another pet peeve: Nouns have gender. Plants have gender. People have sex.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2006 6:52:30 AM
Some people are gravely (and quite reasonably) offended by the image of a man dying on a cross. May I modestly suggest that we, in pragmatic Californian and Fulleresque fashion, respond to them in charity, by changing this offensive symbol to a woman on a couch? No doubt we will be accused by the radical fundamentalist right of heresy, of instituting a suborthodox Odalisque School of Christianity, but hey, they're crabbed reactionaries, not strong, free, pack-leaders like us.
Come to think of it, the femme couchant symbolism may be a bit too much for people to swallow at first. The essense of California pragmatism is to cut a swath right down the middle. Let's put her on the cross. Or perhaps Christ on the couch. Heaven forbid that we offend people. You think maybe we're from New Yawk or Chicaga--or Lou'ville? Let's offend God instead: it's much safer, since he's so awful damn Nice that he won't do anything about it.
And besides, people are attracted to what is like them, to things they can understand, to what does not disturb, upset, or mystify them, to things they can get a firm grip on. This is why men and women are attracted to each other. It's certainly how Christ gathered and held his disciples. And it is also, as institutions like Fuller understand with pristine clarity, the first and greatest law of evangelism. I must say it's about time the rest of us got on board with the deep, ancient, California Wisdom.
Posted by: smh | May 6, 2006 9:26:19 AM
Dcn. John, would it kill you to refrain from gratuitous attacks of the Académie Française and, by extension, the French language and people? I understand that for many of my fellow conservatives, the urge to bash all things French is just irresistible, but really, that was uncalled for. There is no doctrinally correct way to legislate grammar; French is not inferior to English (in fact certain posters here might find it morally superior because it insists that in a mixed gender group the masculine is used, thus refusing to bow to feminist corruption). If you must bash French things, bash me for majoring in French, I don't mind the abuse, but leave the Académie, which isn't here to defend itself, alone.
Stuart, I wholeheartedly agree:) I refuse to answer the queston "what is your gender" on forms, preferring to scratch out gender and write sex, since I'm neither a noun nor a plant. It has yet to get me in trouble... (knock on wood)
Christopher, inversion of the traditional order doesn't usually bug me; I think you're being hypersensitive. Sometimes an inversion of traditional word order works as an attention getter or, in poetry, fits the meter better.
Posted by: Luthien the nasty den mother | May 6, 2006 9:39:01 AM
I agree that the use of "humankind" and whatever is not natural to language as currently spoken.
I must also agree with Luthien that there are inversions of the traditional order of words that are natural, as for example "sisters and brothers" when the poet/songwriter is trying to rhyme with "fathers and mothers." It may or may not be great poetry, but it's sound enough English anyway.
The use of "gender" rather than "sex" is rather annoying, especially when I catch myself doing it.
As for the substitution of the third person plural pronoun, though, I would suggest that we may need to get used to it -- because this, at least according to all my best observations, is (or at least is rapidly becoming) common, popular usage of the language. Honestly, I'm not convinced that this loses useful theological implications in the way that substituting "humankind" for "man" might. We lost the second person singular pronoun entirely some ages ago. Frankly, that loss has probably hurt us more theologically than substituting "them" for "him" is likely to -- which might be why the King James translators retained "thee" and "thou," to make what was (in some cases) a theologically significant distinction between the second person singular and plural.
I think I'll quit before I find myself accidentally making an argument for King-James-only-ism. :)
Posted by: firinnteine | May 6, 2006 10:17:49 AM
Luthien, I probably am hypersensitive to these things. I am also hypersensitive to Christological heresey. Canaries are hypersensitive to gas in coal mines.
Sisters and brothers, etc. for poetic purposes; I get that. But that is not what is going on when many preachers invert the traditional order. They aren't being poetical or trying to make a point. They aren't trying to get your attention at all by this. They are trying not to get someone's attention. They are trying to avoid a fight with someone who is hypersensitive and hostile to the traditional order of the sexes. These preachers want not to have their sermons distracted by contentions over niggling secondary issues.
Choosing your battle grounds and avoiding distracting controversy sounds all well and good. But I think that when your responce to this is to surrender on the disputed issue of sex order in language so that you can talk about the bigger issues you only set up a pattern of retreats so that you will end up defending the Fatherhood of God on the high ground surrounded by the enemy because you have given up all the lowland defences.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 6, 2006 11:01:27 AM
Dr. Hutchens, I suppose the virtue of discernment is important on the West coast but not the east where staid patterns must be kept and fences must be built around the Law.
However, before you too quickly condemn Fuller, or California for that matter, I would encourage you to come for a visit, and look at the lives of those who teach there and talk with them. I dare say the Gospel is not diluted. Indeed, it is the other aspects which become secondary, so the school can become all things to all people as one rather flexible fellow once said back in the day.
Some folks get obsessed about footwear and appearance and making a big deal about showing up for the race. Other folks have their eyes on the prize more than most and just run.
Posted by: Patrick | May 6, 2006 12:11:38 PM
For those intrigued by the above discussion about Fuller Seminary, check out the following thoughts from a recent Fuller graduate (link).
Posted by: Timbo | May 6, 2006 1:10:33 PM
One of the many reasons I love my church is that it uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, whose language never makes me wince. Many of the prayers in it make me think, "I would have said it just that way, were I as talented as the men who wrote this."
On a slightly different subject, my college-student daughter took notice of a fellow student she hadn't particularly liked when he said, "Will everyone please take his seat." She found that so admirable that she emailed him to congratulate him, and - well, we'll see what happens.
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 6, 2006 2:06:00 PM
thanks for the link timbo.
Inspite of that article, I think some of you are kind of making a character out of Fuller. I wish I had opportunities to dialog with even more perspectives at Fuller, but that said, you can find a proff sympathetic to most views here.
If your not interested in dialoging with other evangelical persepctives, don't go to Fuller. But if your a young guy like me that isen't inclined to believe what he was taught growing up "just because" (though I still tend to agree with most of what I was brought up with) than you can find plenty of people to work through things with here.
Posted by: David | May 6, 2006 3:38:24 PM
>>>Sisters and brothers, etc. for poetic purposes<<<
I don't find that anywhere in Scripture--it's always "Brothers and Sisters", or, more properly, "Bretheren" covering both sexes. I regret to say that, in my parish, the periscope introduction found in the Apostol (Epistle book) of "Bretheren" has been unofficially altered to "My brothers and sisters"--except by a few hidebound Lectors who insist on doing it as written and confirmed by Tradition.
In another abomination, the Basilian Sisters, in preparing an English translation of Compline, included in it the atrocious term "God of our ancestors" in place of the patriarchical (and correct) "God of our fathers". The also tried to alter the Psalm "Blessed is the man" to "Blessed is the one"--but were firmly and properly slapped down for that infringement upon Christological particularism.
It just goes to show that, in dealing with the issue of translation, even Byzantines must be on guard against the errors--grammatical and theological--implicit in political correctness.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 6, 2006 4:22:44 PM
Christopher,
I do agree with you about the pronouns, and the order of noun-pairs. When a priest at Mass says, "My sisters and brothers," he is either capitulating to feminist surliness, or, much more likely, he is making a feminist point on the cheap. It stands out; it's exactly as if somebody were to say of a married couple, "They are wife and husband," or if somebody were to talk of "our women and men in the trenches," or "Son-Father Day at the Ballpark," etc. If the priest says "sisters and brothers," nobody cares, nobody even notices. Frankly, "fratres" is most nearly approximated by "brethren," but that's another argument.
It is an interesting question to ask why, anthropologically, the relation of masculine to feminine is considered analogous to the relation of generic to specific. Does even a feminist balk at the phrase "the brotherhood of man"? Why would "the sisterhood of humanity" not only sound silly, but mean something entirely different? Well, I suppose I could answer my own question by recalling the various articles that the magazine has published on these linguistic issues. There may be something about the "He" of God that includes the idea of the feminine, in a way that a putative divine "She" would not include the idea of the masculine. Or, in other words, the truly inclusive language in theology and in anthropology is to call God "He" and to unite all human beings under the singular, collective, unity of "Man". (No other word in English will do, by the way; "humanity" names a quality, and is not concrete, nor singular; "men and women" differentiates where no differentiation is desired; "people" is not singular, nor is it a unity; "everybody" or "those who" or "all" are not even personal.)
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 6, 2006 4:39:56 PM
Tony, I think feminist types use "humankind" where a sensible person would say "man."
Posted by: Judy Warner | May 6, 2006 5:19:00 PM
By far the most annoying solution to gender language hypersensitivity is to alternate masculine and feminine pronouns throughout the paragraph. "When your child is six months old, she ought to have begun making efforts to crawl. If he does not do this by ten months, call your doctor..." They do it all the time in those freebie parenting magazines that come unsolicited in the mail. Otherwise people just wouldn't know that some babies are girls.
Posted by: peter speckhard | May 6, 2006 8:01:19 PM
BTW, I meant to say "if the priest says 'brothers and sisters,' nobody notices," in my comment above -- silly typo.
Judy, you're right. I think that Fr. Mankowski in an old Touchstone article pointed out that "mankind" (and thus also "humankind") is not the same thing as "man," linguistically. "Mankind" is a collective, but not a singular unity. You can perceive the difference if you talk about the relationship between "God and man," and then about the relationship between "God and mankind." The latter introduces a notion of variety -- because "mankind" is a collective but not a singular unity. It's interesting to try to follow up his insight by revising famous lines and see how they are changed. "The human heart is evil from his [its? our?] youth" just doesn't cover the same semantic ground as "The heart of man is evil from his youth." Or Milton's "Evil into the mind of God or man / May come and go, so unapprov'd" -- what on earth would substitute there? "Evil into the mind of God or mankind" -- but there you see startlingly clearly that "mankind" is not a unity, but a collective.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 6, 2006 11:33:37 PM
The point has been made many times before in Touchstone (and elsewhere), but needs to be made again explicitly here:
The deliberate inversion of the order of the sexes in feminist-speak, "inclusive" languge, etc. constitutes a profound attack upon Biblical anthropology as given from the opening of the book of Genesis onward. As C. S. Lewis noted about women "priests", men and women and not androgynous tokens that can be rearragned at will to suit our fallen prejudices (as nominalism supposes). They are created, and live and move and have their being, in specifically ordered relations with one another and with God. Natural language reflects that. Thus "mankind" is inclusive of both "men and women," which pairing in turn reflects the order of creation and relation within that. And "ladies and gentlemen" is not a contradiction or exception to that because it instead specifically represents the care and solicitude that men (in their proper headship role, which like Christ is self-sacrificial and not self-assertive) owe to women as the "weaker vessel" (now there's a term to offend the world!). The notion that language about men and women can and should be reordered in an androgynous or egalitarian fashion to cater to social-political agendas is inextricably tied to both the pretended "ordination" of women sacramental clergy and pretended "marriage" between two people of the same sex.
Posted by: James Altena | May 7, 2006 6:20:38 AM
By far the most annoying solution to gender language hypersensitivity is to alternate masculine and feminine pronouns throughout the paragraph. "When your child is six months old, she ought to have begun making efforts to crawl. If he does not do this by ten months, call your doctor..."
Switching back and forth within the same passage is distracting, but using "he" in some passages and "she" in others makes sense. As I recall, Dr Spock did this very naturally in his classic baby-care book. If I read chapter after chapter describing babies as "he," you'd better believe I have a mental image of baby boys.
I think feminist types use "humankind" where a sensible person would say "man."
I have to say I seldom encounter "man" used in way by contemporary writers/speakers, so that when I do encounter it I assume the writer/speaker is self-consciously trying to make a point. So that's the opposite of what some others in this thread have described, but for some of us, inclusive language in fact does sound more natural.
I don't understand [its] fanaticism on inclusive language. What do they get from it? What gives? ... Why in the hell should they care what feminists think of them?
This response seems odd to me. "What do they get from it"? Are "they" entirely self-serving, or might they be trying to use language in a way that they believe is both considerate and honest?
"Why in the hell should they care what feminists think of them?" Why assume that "evangelicals" and "feminists" are mutually exclusive groups? Maybe some of "them" have their own strong feelings about inclusive language. You can disagree with those judgments, but why assume they are based on anything different from what motivates anyone to prefer inclusive language? When people chooses to use traditional language, are they aping or playing for the attention of someone they hope to impress?
Posted by: Juli | May 7, 2006 7:49:58 AM
Juli,
Oh, I dunno -- maybe a cursory consideration of the devastating feminist attack on sexual morality and the family, not to mention, in the churches, their attack on Biblical language about God (forget man, for the moment), on the divinity of Jesus, and the canonicity of the Scriptures as we have them -- maybe considering all these things they'd be just a little wary of the linguistic alterations, ESPECIALLY when the changes are motivated by the same false egalitarianism that causes the feminists to reject, well, certain passages in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter. That's a lot of rejecting, and for what? Imagine if somebody else with a different social-political agenda went after the NT with THEIR scissors. And then somebody else, and somebody else.
Another by the way: in the matter of the NT teachings on the family, it is grimly amusing to see one political correctness corrode another. We are told -- I think it's a crock -- that Paul didn't write Ephesians (because it's in a different style, supposedly, with a different theology, particularly that stuff about obedience and the Christian life). Then we are told that Ephesians cribs from Colossians, which is either by Paul or not by Paul. If it is not by Paul, then we have Not-Paul 1 and Not-Paul 2, because it would hardly make sense for Not-Paul 1 to "plagiarize" Paul by cribbing from Not-Paul 1's OWN letter. Then we have the Pastorals, which are also supposedly Not-Paul, but since they are far more like Romans in style than they are like Ephesians, they must be by Not-Paul 3. Then we have Peter, or Not-Peter, who wrote 1 Peter, as the case may be. What a multiplication of apostles, ALL OF WHOM have the SAME things to say about husbands and wives, and the place of women in the church! And I'm supposed to reject that wisdom -- for what? What wonderful boon for civilization and the church do we derive from this, quite aside from the apostasy? Mary Baker Eddy? The novels of Toni Morrison? No offense to either, but I'll stick with Scripture.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 7, 2006 9:31:10 AM
"What wonderful boon for civilization and the church do we derive from this, quite aside from the apostasy? Mary Baker Eddy? The novels of Toni Morrison? No offense to either, but I'll stick with Scripture."
Priestesses or pastoresses, Tony; that's what it's all about.
Posted by: William Tighe | May 7, 2006 10:56:04 AM
"It doesn't matter if Gentiles are speaking in tongues, the Law says they have to be circumcized," one would expect a possible 1st century version of this thread to say.
And of course they would be right. Gentiles are a barbarous lot, not keeping to proper order in rites or language. It's not that they are bad in themselves. They just have a tendency, you know, and we can't quite be sure what real laws they will break if we dismantle the fence. Plus, they're a little stinky.
Posted by: Patrick | May 7, 2006 11:25:14 AM
Patrick,
That last comment -- you must remember that it's the same Saint Paul who defends the Gentiles, and who rules out the possibility of priestesses and pastoresses. I'm not one of those who ascribes the first to his amazing broadmindedness and deep faith in Christ, and the second to his narrowminded bigotry....
Posted by: Tony Esolen | May 7, 2006 3:24:55 PM
Mr Hathaway,
So I'm now a heretic on Christological grounds? I never said that God is female. (If He is, I'm becoming an atheist.) I never said Christ was a woman. I am still opposed to women's ordinaton. I still believe that the husband is the head of the family. I am still a Greek Orthodox Christian in good standing. My aim in life is still to be a happily married homeschool mother of many. There, are you happy? I merely thought that you were a leetle bit over the top in your attack on inverting pronoun order. Did that warrant an attack on my Orthodoxy/position on gender issues? Finally, since, as a woman I am of the weaker sex, you ought to be nice.
Firinnteine, thank you! Your wisdom is always appreciated :)
Posted by: Luthien the newly minted heretic (???!!!) | May 7, 2006 7:04:49 PM
I wish to emphasize James Altena's remark, once again in response to Patrick, whose consistent politeness is much appreciated: "The point has been made many times before in Touchstone (and elsewhere), but needs to be made again explicitly here: The deliberate inversion of the order of the sexes in feminist-speak, "inclusive" languge, etc. constitutes a profound attack upon Biblical anthropology as given from the opening of the book of Genesis onward. . . ."
This is why, Patrick, our argument with Fuller and the many other Evangelical schools that are like it, is not about secondary matters, matters of taste, or an expression of legalism. It is argument against false doctrine--a false anthropology, hence a false Christology, hence a false Theology Proper. (They are inextricably connected.) This is why most people who will not use the masculine pronoun as inclusive for people also do not use it for God. They have seen what the logic of their anthropology entails; headship of the masculine has in all its forms become obnoxious to them.
This means that the real Christ is not worshiped among egalitarians, and that those whom they win to their newly discovered vision of Christ--presumably the "prize" one is thinking of here--may not be presumed to have been won to Christ at all. To the extent they believe in this new Christ they still require conversion. This is why doctrine is fundamental in matters of evangelism. What profit is there in winning people, however joyously and exultantly, to a Christ who does not exist? One can get the same effect with drugs.
With respect to the invitation to visit Fuller--heavens, Patrick, I have spent years studying at Evangelical seminaries, and know what kind of people one finds there. I don't need to be convinced that they are full of terribly nice, very intelligent, people with their eyes on the prize--just like the vast majority of Mormons I have met. How one feels about them personally is completely beside the point.
Posted by: smh | May 8, 2006 9:13:25 AM
Dr. Hutchens, my argument is that it is that gender inclusive language does not in fact always result in the kinds of slipping you suggest.
You make a note about gender inclusive language leading to heresy, then charge those who use it with heresy. Yet, you cannot charge someone with heresy if they haven't actually committed it. Whether or not there is a potential towards drifting into a Mormon like misappropriation of Christ is not the same as actually doing it. I can, in fact, walk to the edge of a cliff, enjoy the view, without falling off. It's called balance.
Yes, there should be warning. Yes, there are people who fall off. But, it is also the fact the so-called Judaizers were likely not men intent on their own power struggle. They had read the Scriptures as they had them. They knew what God had said about Israel. They likely even knew the story of Jesus saying he had not come for Gentiles but for Jews, implying Gentiles were a little like dogs who beg for the scraps after the meal is done.
The early church did not have the benefit of Paul's authoritative writings, and so had to wrestle with this issue according to the Scriptures they did have, and then wrestle with the fact the Messiah they knew to expect had in fact been a rather bit different, and like it or not was in fact working through people they would prefer he let alone.
Dr. Esolen made note about the fact it is Paul who rules out the possibility of priestesses and pastoresses. He does rule out the possibility, it seems, of elderesses, but he also support the presence of prophetesses and teacheresses and in his lists of gifts doesn't make a gender distinction. I rather think he would be baffled by any discussion of priests, male or female, wondering when we became pagans and had to make more sacrifices.
In all of this, however, he curiously doesn't make a point about pronouns. He doesn't suggest the same slippery slope as you do, and within the text we can generally assume he is talking to the men as well as the women in most cases.
I would guess that if someone made a point about whether he meant men and women in his exhortations he would say, "of course." He might also find a general rejection of a good swath of the Christian community because of their particular, and maybe bothersome, use of pronouns to be a little less like a defense of the person of Christ and a little more like the wrestling over geneaologies.
Gender inclusive language may lead to and suggest a heretical tendency. But it doesn't insist on it. A person can even in fact have a theology of ordination for women without denying any part of the Nicene Creed.
The same catalog which affirms inclusive language also affirms these beliefs:
Following this evangelical pattern, the Fuller Statement of Faith includes ten central affirmations which we "hold to be essential" to our ministry: 1) the existence, perfection and triune nature of God; 2) the revelation of God in creation, history and in Jesus Christ; 3) the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures; 4) God's creation of the world and humankind, with humanity's rebellion and subsequent depravity; 5) the person and work of Jesus Christ, including his deity, virgin birth, true humanity, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, and ascension to heaven; 6) the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration and justification; 7) growth in the knowledge of God and Christian obedience; 8) the church as the creation of the Holy Spirit; 9) the worship, mission and service of the church; 10) the return of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the world.
Thus while you assume an egalitarian cannot worship the real Christ, others disagree, others who would live and die for the same basic core doctrines as you would. To then suggest there are extra doctrines, extra ways of saying who is the "real" Christian and extra ways of drawing a line in the sand which separates the wheat from the chaff is, in my estimation, not very different from those good hearted men who were told throughout Scripture that the primary way to show one's dedication to God was through circumcision and so wanted everyone to stick with it.
It may be a pet peeve. It may in fact be theologically questionable. But it is not quite heresy, even if some of those who use gender inclusive language go far past the bounds, and do deny God's revelation.
Indeed, I have posted three years of my Fuller work online. You don't have to visit Fuller to see if I've committed or assert the kinds of heresies you insist are inherent to gender inclusive language. I dare say you and I could share a communion cup with full embrace as brothers in Christ even if I do happen to use "people" or "humanity" rather than "mankind". Language is a fluid thing, fixed only according to usage and not necessarily the best way of determining one's eternal standing.
Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2006 10:46:22 AM
Patrick -
With respect to your recent reply to Hutchens - methinks you are mistakenly taking the symptom to be the cause. If I understand Hutchens' point, gender inclusive language does not lead to heresy. Rather, it is a symptom indicating a heresy into which one has already been lead.
Posted by: JDB | May 8, 2006 12:00:31 PM
JDB, the argument stays the same. One has to show the actual heresy exists to charge with the heresy. A woman who is sick in the morning can have an ulcer, or be pregnant.
A seminary which affirms an orthodox Christology according to the various councils cannot be charged with a heretical Christology just for language choice. To say they deny Christ as the Church has proclaimed him, one has to show where they actually deny Christ, not that they act in a similar manner to others who may deny Christ.
Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2006 12:28:03 PM
Patrick: The demonstration of heresy (again, as I understand Hutchens' point) is conveyed rather straightfowardly in the language of Fuller's catalog - quoted by Hutchens in an earlier post (see May 5th, 5 p.m. above).
Fuller denies (or at least refuses to take a position) on "the headship of the masculine" - something "inextricably connected" to both a proper anthropology and Christology. Thus, Hutchens' point: to deny or to refuse to countenance the former is to err with respect to the latter.
Posted by: JDB | May 8, 2006 3:11:51 PM
JDB, I think it is the inextricably connected" bit which we may have to resign to differing on. I can't seem to find any verses which say that confession of "the headship of the masculinity" is a key to salvation. Christ as savior. Christ as risen Lord. God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yes, of course. But, that phrase seems more of a latterly linked inextricable connection than a mandatory part which could be called heresy upon diversion.
Yes there are people who illustrate a heresy while using phrases such as God the Mother, and other such concepts. However, Fuller's refusal to take a position on such a concept of "headship of the masculine" is not due to heretical exploration but because this phrase has been used by countless men to exploit and abuse, thus has become a phrase with anything but settled meaning and interpretation. When you say this I literally have no idea where you stand on a whole list of issues relating to gender in our churches. Thus, a person, by asserting this phrase can in fact be asserting a very awful Christology all under the guise of acceptable terminology, creating an abusive, domineering, Christ who has somehow forgot about the Spirit and made a particular man into the Holy Spirit for a particular woman or women.
Saying the "headship of the masculine" to a woman who was abused by a wicked man does not lead her to Christological worship. That is the primary goal of Fuller, to let language go if it has become a barrier and take up language which is no less orthodox, even if it is less traditional.
I find the fuller Fuller statement to be a helpful read.
Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2006 4:15:35 PM
Bless you, Patrick; you're saying very clearly what badly needs to be said.
I've been trying to think what the suspicious tone in this thread and others reminds me of, and I realized it's McCarthyism. Disliking McCarthyism is probably linked to heretical tendencies as well.
Posted by: Juli | May 8, 2006 8:29:27 PM
So I'm now a heretic on Christological grounds? I never said that God is female. (If He is, I'm becoming an atheist.) I never said Christ was a woman.
My dear Luthien, I never accused you of any of these things. You inferred quite erroneously. I was merely pointing out that hypersensitivity is not always such a bad thing and that there were good reasons for being sensitive about changes in language about man and woman.
We are clearly agreed on what constitutes unorthodoxy with regard to both sex roles and the Trinity. But unorthodoxy doesn't always come full bore all at once. It often starts with little steps. As one trained in theology I feel it is my calling and duty to note these small steps and point them out.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | May 8, 2006 10:02:24 PM
Patrick,
I can understand, in the abstract, how a woman who has been abused by a man who indicated (either implicitly or explicitly) that he was doing this in Jesus' name can get turned off to God. (I have read reports of social science research suggesting that these sorts of situations are more likely in which the man was raised in the church but has since fallen away and does not attend regularly anymore.) But what data do we have on how common these situations are? Is it a good idea to bend over in the other direction to try to alleviate this? One consequence of that effort might be to etiolate authentic expressions of masculine authority (those of which Jesus would approve). The pathologies of the modern age in regards to men incline them toward membership in the camps of either the wimp or the bully. I suppose I see the danger of the Fuller approach as leading to the former. (Then the reaction against it will lead to the latter.)
I think the danger that the Fuller folks perceive and the problem that weighs heaviest on me (as the father of six boys) are different, but spring from the same polluted well. Too many males have been raised in the absence of fathers (whether due to divorce or materialist preoccupations such as careers) and so are stunted in the proper development of their masculinity. They don't have a proper conception of fatherhood and so have difficulty understanding what their heavenly Father is like. They were bereft of the example of a father and mother who loved each other and them. They don't have a decent script for male-female relationships and so adopt the pathological models offered through popular culture. It's no wonder that men in their early 30s still have adolescent preoccupations and why women can't find men who treat them properly.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | May 9, 2006 10:39:25 AM
Gene notes: " The pathologies of the modern age in regards to men incline them toward membership in the camps of either the wimp or the bully."
So this is just a modern phenomenon for men, if it is true? Because it seems that for milleniums women have been caste into the camps of being either slut or virgin.
Posted by: Renee | May 9, 2006 11:11:16 AM
I really hope that someday these blog threads that Hutchens starts are collected, bound, and distributed to college students seeking instruction in irony.
Nobody ever seems to catch the gag that Hutchens can say and do as he will on here, neither finding himself tethered to a church or a tradition. The fact he espouses a "conservative Christianity" is hardly lost on me; what remains in the void of mystery is why anyone (aside from his sycophants) take him seriously. Whatever problems he claims to identify and rally against (and I think he does hit on quite a few) have been stated elsewhere by far more eloquent men who at least have the integrity to hold to something a lot more, shall we say, hardened than the fluidity of mere subjective opinion. Now granted, that doesn't always make Hutchens wrong; it just fails to make a convincing argument about why we should listen (or, rather, read).
I'm not a particularly big fan of Fuller, though I am not a particularly big fan of a lot of aspects of evangelical Protestantism. All the same, it strikes me as odd at how Patrick or, for that matter, any of the "lone wolf" voices that ocassionally howl against Hutchens', manages to hold their own by sticking to the logic of their arguments whereas their "cultured despisers" simply shift to ad hominem attacks, heresy baiting, or just plain thuggery. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that amidst all of the conservative "backlash" that animates Hutchens and his crew, the existence of a coherent, clearly-defined principle of criticism gives rise to the chaos.
Steven and his horde can march around the Ivory towers blowing their horn all the day long; in the end, the only thing that appears to be falling down are the IQs.
Keep up the good work, gentlepersons.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | May 9, 2006 11:20:51 AM
One more thing just struck me as I reviewed a few points above...
Why is it that the generation that failed thinks that it has something worthwhile to impart to my own? All of the problems Hutchens and others identify came about under their "watch" so-to-speak. I am but one of the same generation as their children; it is we who have to deal with their mess, their inability to give us something other than compassionate nihilism as the "spirit of the times." Oh sure, decades removed from the source of the problem, we can intently read their erudite remarks about the consequences of those social cancers, but I cannot recall ever once reading an apology. Why not at least one, "I'm sorry for giving you a world this terrible; please fix it before your own children come of age." No, no...it's always someone else's fault; it is always the doings of the nebulous "other"; "the liberal did it, not me!"
I cannot say for certain what the demographic is that normally reads and posts on this blog. I know, however, that I am not the only 20-something who finds himself in the unsettling position of identifying with conservatives, but finding a great deal of revulsion at its decayed core; the same decayed core that the failure generation lifts up continually to be worshipped on an altar built upon nothing but hate.
I have been lampooned and berated against on here more times than I can recount, but I suspect the loudest voices came from the failure generation. I and so many others who would dissent on here are the "liberals"; we are the ones "clouded" with ideology; we are the ones incapable of doing anything "positive" about the present iniquities. If that is so, could it be because the tools handed on to us have been so completely inadequate for the task? Could it be that we have been given a road map based on heresay, not experience? And could it not be that those who should have paved the way for us are too busy ignoring their own drastic shortcomings, pointing fingers left and right to bypass the indictments?
I doubt the picture is quite that grim, though it's close. I can't really imagine at this point where myself or my brothers and sisters will take the world. "To Hell in a handbasket...that's where!" would probably be Stephen's reply to my perplexity. Maybe he'd be right in saying so. I'm unwilling to ignore, however, that all was packed up and ready to go long before I got here.
Posted by: Gabriel Sanchez | May 9, 2006 11:52:38 AM
Gabriel --
Personally, as a (young-end) twenty-something, I read this blog because I seek wisdom here. If I did not believe that I often found it, I would quit reading. Are there problems, weaknesses, sometimes overstatements or errors? Doubtless. But my specific purpose in reading is to "be transformed by the renewing of [the] mind." Touchstone helps. I have plenty of other useful ways to occupy my time, if I ever find this one unprofitable for growth in grace and godliness.
However, I can only speak for myself.
Posted by: firinnteine | May 9, 2006 12:44:54 PM
Gabriel,
When one is a relatively new convert to Christianity (say, less than five years), one comes to see that the world has a lot of problems in it that one hadn't heretofore appreciated. You seem to have a lot of animus at Dr. Hutchens. Why, I've never quite been able to discern. (Is it a Don Quixote-ish streak?) But in any case, it is quite implausible to pin the sins of the baby boomers upon him. He seems (to me) to be almost completely counter to boomer culture.
Also, if your Orthodox co-religionists at the journal appear to find him a good brother in Jesus Christ and value his contributions, maybe this should incline you to give him another hearing. I don't know why you find him such a burr under your saddle, but it just isn't seemly to continue going on this way about him. Give it a rest. Aren't there larger windmills, more deadly (in your eyes) to the Kingdom of God, that you could devote your considerable energies to trampling down?
Posted by: Gene Godbold | May 9, 2006 1:31:01 PM
Gabriel,
I have avoided this thread because it appears to me to be a tempest in a teapot. Having said that, I find myself in agreement with Patrick.
But I wanted to comment on your statement:
- Why is it that the generation that failed thinks that it has something worthwhile to impart to my own? All of the problems Hutchens and others identify came about under their "watch" so-to-speak. I am but one of the same generation as their children; it is we who have to deal with their mess, their inability to give us something other than compassionate nihilism as the "spirit of the times." Oh sure, decades removed from the source of the problem, we can intently read their erudite remarks about the consequences of those social cancers, but I cannot recall ever once reading an apology.
First, my generation, while partially responsible for the mess, actually (despite are declarations that we were rebelling against our parent) were really just carrying their own errors to their logical conclusions. The debacle of the baby boom generation was not some great departure from what went before, but just the natural progression of what we were handed in terms of culture and way to much wealth and free time.
Second, your generation is not exactly stopping the free fall into Sodom. Your generation, more than mine, is just fine with two men or two women, or a man and two women, of a group of men and women, "marrying" each other. The polls show that your generation is more tolerant of deviance than even my own deviant generation. That is, your generation is continuing the natural progression into the same pit.
Your railings against Mr. Hutchens and the other contributers to Touchstone and Mere Comments because they belong to the baby boom generation is analogous to a 6th century B.C. Israelite railing against Jeremiah and Ezekiel for cataloging the sins of their generation or a 1st century A.D. Palestinian railing against Christ and His apostles for cataloging the sins of their time on earth. Just because one was born into a particular epoch does not mean he is guilty of the sins of that epoch.
You have a great deal to learn, but then so did I when I was your age. I would recommend humility as a good place to start.
Posted by: GL | May 9, 2006 1:34:13 PM
