"Inclusive" language
In many churches today, the hymns, prayers, and Scriptures are revised to make the language "inclusive." This means that whenever the generic word man is used it is deleted or replaced by a word like person, people, others, men and women, etc. A line of the grand old hymn, "Holy, Holy, Holy"-"Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see" had been revised to read, "though the sinful human eye," which of course is a Manichean (see below) heresy. It stops me cold every time we sing it. And at Harvard University professors demand the use of "non-sexist" language such as (i'm not making this up) the "freshperson" class. It is mere ignorance of the meaning of generic which produces this outrageous mutilation of our glorious language, or is it a far more insidious and calculating determination to alter our vision of the nature god created when He designed man and woman? My brother Tom Howard explained his objection to "inclusive" language. Here's part of what he said:
"I use the traditional word 'men' because i am not a Manichean (a Persian system of belief which held that the soul is good and the body evil). The ancient edifice of language judges us, not we it. I am not prepared to leach away the almost sacramental solidity of words by expunging the rich and protohistoric 'men' and 'women' in favor of the eviscerate 'persons.' Remember, the word 'man' somehow bespeaks all of us mortals and sinners; and the word 'woman' bespeaks us as we receive the approaches of the Divine. You and i must accept the mystery of our gender, and wear it with dignity and grace."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated, therefore just leave a little message at the end if you would prefer your comment not to be published!