|
Talking about each other TALKING ABOUT EACH OTHER In English 'Man' is, strictly speaking, the generic term, as is 'he'. It is true that some inclusive language debate has been astray in its linguistic analysis as we have shown, and perhaps that it is part of a general strategy of feminism 73 in some quarters to not only rectify patriarchy but to place women in the ascendancy. In this respect, interpersonal inclusive language may in many areas of the church seem and be "the thin of the wedge" driving itself "between us and revealed Biblical truth" and also "contribute to the separation of men and women and a heightened sense of offence between them." 74 However, there is no longer a practicable generic term in English. The language has changed already. I noticed in my reading somewhere that the latest edition of Roget's Thesaurus no longer has 'man' as a generic term; English has no generic. This then, is not the place to challenge the culture. The answer is not to reject interpersonal inclusive language, to steadfastly say 'man' and 'he' in a roomful of women because it is grammatically 'correct'. This is because the correlation in English between sexist language games and the English generic terminology is too obvious to ignore. Wrongly or otherwise, women do feel excluded in many cases by the use of the generics. Being clear about our terminology for God we can begin to make changes regarding interpersonal language. We can set our parameters for the reform of language in the liturgy so that accepting inclusive language for talking about people is not to open a Pandora's box; it need not follow that we 'lose' 'Father' as a result. The argument that the terminology is clumsy is not valid. 'Persons' is supposed to be clumsy and intrusive yet my own minister, Rod James, often uses it while preaching. No-one complains. One suspects the complaints come only if the speaker is known to be in favour of inclusive language, or makes a big fuss about it. Ms magazine lists 14 ways to avoid sexist use of pronouns. 75 The simplest and most sensible method they suggest is to use the form "if a person... they". The whole problem of sexism and exclusiveness is avoided by using the plural. To the howls about "the rape of the English language" they point out that 'they' was widely accepted in written English until the end of the 18th century when grammarians began to attack it. 76 With respect to interpersonal language, I think Jesus is the Lord of language rather than grammar being lord of Him. It is observable fact that acceptable grammar changes over time; a comparison of the King James and Revised Standard Versions shows this. The following comment is thought provoking. Changing a word such as 'chairman' to 'chairperson is not just a game. As people struggle with words their consciousness often raised. Having to say 'chairperson' makes one face the fact that it can be a woman who chairs a committee or meeting.
78 DEFINING A SEXIST TERM The actual decision that a word is sexist is rather difficult in many cases. "He" in footnote 32 was obviously sexist. But what about the word 'Son'.? The NCC Lectionary sees it as exclusive 79 as does Carter Heyward. 80 (1 rather suspect that the term is a revealed analogy we should retain.) Yet surely we can call ourselves children and not sons. However in Romans 8:14-17
Paul uses huios and tekna in almost the same breath. Are the two terms interchangeable or is there a distinction? 81 The situation is further complicated by the fact that in a Sunday reading in church there is not time for the leisurely rereading and study of the difference between sons and children that there is during a Bible study. In church it is God speaking more than academic or intellectual reflection. 82 Similarly, `Lord` is often seen as 5exist, presumably because in English we use the term 'Lord and Lady.' Yet in Greek there is kurios and kuria. Nike, Athena, and Isis are all Lord 83 which indicates the term was not sexist. Surely if Jesus had been female it would not have been sexist to call him Lady?! In any event in some of today's fiction the term 'Lord' is being applied to male and female, 84 which also questions the alleged sexism of the term, Apart from the fact that 'Lord' is probably an indispensable revealed term, we see the problems in discerning if a term really is sexist.
THE PROBLEM OF APPLICATION AND REFORM It is plain that much language claimed to be exclusive is in fact not exclusive. It has often been used exclusively. We are thus in the difficult position of saying that we live in a society that is largely patriarchal (still) and are part of a church that has been influenced by patriarchal sexism, and yet saying that of necessity some of the liturgical language must continue to correlate with language that is generally considered sexist or exclusive. One might ask how we can hope to separate the reality of God the Father from sexism when books such as Oddie's What Will Happen to God 86 show such an intermingling of the two. In some cases there are no apparent solutions. God is Father but not male. Yet God is not 'it', so God must be he or she. With Wainright we may be stuck with the "male language of God in the absence a satisfactory alternative...87 It would seem that the correlation of our language and the fact of sexism in society dooms us to be seen as sexist and to be under continuing pressure to accept unacceptable inclusive language. I do not think this is in fact so. Language reforms provide "illusory solutions to human problems". 88 We must go beyond language to show up this illusion and solve the real problem of language. A STRATEGY a) To talk with and listen to women is a necessity. It finds out firsthand where people hurt on the issue. And it becomes clear that not all women who want reform are in agreement with the extremes of Mary Daly or other radicals. b) We need to bear in mind that Scripture is authoritative for us- and then be obedient to all of it. Inclusive language is part of a larger whole. It is not just tidying up 89 a few words. Obedience to all of it means women are to be treated as equal people in fact, by representation, ordination, and access to power, as well as being included in language. c) We need to increase the depth of our spirituality to allow the 'de?-idolizing' of 'Father'. One would think at present from the way we pray that 'Father' was the only word we had for God. This reflects a paucity of experience, which leads to 'Father' almost being sterile from overuse. There is a kind of vicious circle here. The over use of 'Father' leads to a kind of idolatry that is horrified by the use of anything else. Yet as when we eat only one kind of food we get sick, so one term for God does not give us the variety we need. 90 This is highly important if liturgy is one of the main vehicles available for the renewal of the church. 91 Learning to meditate, to listen to dreams etc. has enabled me to break into this dry circle and experience God as other than Father. I am the richer for it. 92. CONCLUSION At present the verbal correlation of Christian imagery and patriarchy is also a factual and functional correlation in many cases. If the factual correlation were removed by the three strategies above, then the verbal correlation would be of no import. The verbal correlations with patriarchy would be outweighed by a wealth of images for God that did not have sexist connotations and the increase in spiritual vitality I suspect would accompany that, by the equal status of women, and by non-sexist translation of Scriptures and choice of lectionary readings.93 Claims of patriarchy and sexism on the basis of language could not be sustained in such an environment. At present one sometimes wonders if they have some validity.
My thanks to Anne, Nellie and Wendy for much helpful discussion. Barth, K. Church Dogmatics I(1) (T&T Clarke 1936)*
|
