I would be interested in dialoguing with others about how to update or reframe the lectionary for missional congregations. Anyone out there have thoughts/ideas and willing to chat about that?
I believe that the conversation about language and how we tell the story should be part of every thread, so that we think carefully about how we use language and how we engage with those who may not know the story, or may feel that the story doesn't apply to them.
I commented on this thread because of both the language/wording of the title of the material and because of the content of the recommended study.
But, you have made your point and I will agree to disagree. However, if we can't have a dialogue with dissenting voices, it's not much of a conversation.
I have tried to send this as a pesonal email through the network site, but it won't go through, so I'm posting it here. . .
Hi Allen,
Read your last post and wanted to take it "off-line", so that the back and forth between us doesn't get circular :)
I understand your final post and appreciate that you have a responsibility to moderate that thread. I also agree that the issue will not be "resolved" in any text-based, on-line dialogue. However, your previous post (at 3:02) gave me the impression that my comments were not welcome, that they "distracted" from the "real" conversation we should be having, and that I should take them somewhere else.
Your further post clarified in a more effective way, for me. They were less personal (i.e. not directed specifically at me) and I understood that you heard my comments, not just that you wanted them to stop.
The conversations did not seem circular to me, as they were responses from different people, with different emphases.
It's difficult to have a real conversation online. I bless you in your role. I trust, in general, it's more 'fun' than 'friction'. :)
I would never use it and am surprised that you are recommending anything with the title "Sonship".
Seriously. . .do we still need to have the conversation about how language "speaks", and how this title disenfranchises and demeans half of the population?
I'm sorry if this seems antagonistic, but this kind of thing matters. And it matters because of the Gospel! It's not a side issue, something - despite the Gospel - to which we can continue to turn a blind eye. Adoption means everyone. Sonship means only those with a. . . male anatomy.
Thank you for the background - I did understand the biblical reference and the emphasis on adoption and the freedom that comes from being united with Christ. I'm not surprised that a study on this topic, with the intensive, mentored approach that you mention would be effective.
Yes, there were many books published before and during the years when gender equity issues were nascent and beginning to be better understood. That is no reason to continue to use this kind of language. Books and print materials of all genres are regularly re-issued with new and/or edited material, with new covers and imagery and with different titles and by-lines. This is a common and effective method of updating material that has become out of date.
If the publisher wants to continue to promote this material, they should change the title. And we should not purchase or promote material that is insensitive to this issue. We should, instead, be telling the publisher that, no matter how good their material, we won't buy it with that title.
While it may be only one instance of demeaning language, it points to the still deeply imbeded use of words that hurt and disenfranchise. We could strive to do better. We should take every step possible to lift up the radical insistence of the gospel - we are all one in Christ, and none should lord it over the others.
Are you advocating that we take whatever words we find in the modern english translations of our bible and make them mean whatever we like? Son means male. Sonship means relationships between parent and males. Adoption is more inclusive and applies to both male and female.
Sonship is exclusive, not inclusive. And regardless of whether you would like it to be inclusive, or not, it speaks to inequality, not its opposite.
I agree that we can argue about words until the cows come home. We are not talking about the word 'man', we are talking about the word son.
And quoting a list of scriptures does not prove your point.
The english word 'son' is exclusive and does not reflect the witness of the whole story of scripture or of the life and witness of Jesus.
If we agree that God loves the female that he made and there is no distinction in his love between male and female, then we should shout that story from the rooftops. We (those who have the responsibility of telling this great story) should not make those who don't know the story work so hard that they have to twist their language to fit in. They should not have to learn a secret code about what we "really" mean by the word son. . .wink wink. . .in order to get the point.
Posted in: Reformed Worship and the Lectionary
I would be interested in dialoguing with others about how to update or reframe the lectionary for missional congregations. Anyone out there have thoughts/ideas and willing to chat about that?
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
I believe that the conversation about language and how we tell the story should be part of every thread, so that we think carefully about how we use language and how we engage with those who may not know the story, or may feel that the story doesn't apply to them.
I commented on this thread because of both the language/wording of the title of the material and because of the content of the recommended study.
But, you have made your point and I will agree to disagree. However, if we can't have a dialogue with dissenting voices, it's not much of a conversation.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
I have tried to send this as a pesonal email through the network site, but it won't go through, so I'm posting it here. . .
Hi Allen,
Read your last post and wanted to take it "off-line", so that the back and forth between us doesn't get circular :)
I understand your final post and appreciate that you have a responsibility to moderate that thread. I also agree that the issue will not be "resolved" in any text-based, on-line dialogue. However, your previous post (at 3:02) gave me the impression that my comments were not welcome, that they "distracted" from the "real" conversation we should be having, and that I should take them somewhere else.
Your further post clarified in a more effective way, for me. They were less personal (i.e. not directed specifically at me) and I understood that you heard my comments, not just that you wanted them to stop.
The conversations did not seem circular to me, as they were responses from different people, with different emphases.
It's difficult to have a real conversation online. I bless you in your role. I trust, in general, it's more 'fun' than 'friction'. :)
Colleen
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
I would never use it and am surprised that you are recommending anything with the title "Sonship".
Seriously. . .do we still need to have the conversation about how language "speaks", and how this title disenfranchises and demeans half of the population?
I'm sorry if this seems antagonistic, but this kind of thing matters. And it matters because of the Gospel! It's not a side issue, something - despite the Gospel - to which we can continue to turn a blind eye. Adoption means everyone. Sonship means only those with a. . . male anatomy.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
Thank you for the background - I did understand the biblical reference and the emphasis on adoption and the freedom that comes from being united with Christ. I'm not surprised that a study on this topic, with the intensive, mentored approach that you mention would be effective.
Yes, there were many books published before and during the years when gender equity issues were nascent and beginning to be better understood. That is no reason to continue to use this kind of language. Books and print materials of all genres are regularly re-issued with new and/or edited material, with new covers and imagery and with different titles and by-lines. This is a common and effective method of updating material that has become out of date.
If the publisher wants to continue to promote this material, they should change the title. And we should not purchase or promote material that is insensitive to this issue. We should, instead, be telling the publisher that, no matter how good their material, we won't buy it with that title.
While it may be only one instance of demeaning language, it points to the still deeply imbeded use of words that hurt and disenfranchise. We could strive to do better. We should take every step possible to lift up the radical insistence of the gospel - we are all one in Christ, and none should lord it over the others.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
Are you advocating that we take whatever words we find in the modern english translations of our bible and make them mean whatever we like? Son means male. Sonship means relationships between parent and males. Adoption is more inclusive and applies to both male and female.
Sonship is exclusive, not inclusive. And regardless of whether you would like it to be inclusive, or not, it speaks to inequality, not its opposite.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
I agree that we can argue about words until the cows come home. We are not talking about the word 'man', we are talking about the word son.
And quoting a list of scriptures does not prove your point.
The english word 'son' is exclusive and does not reflect the witness of the whole story of scripture or of the life and witness of Jesus.
If we agree that God loves the female that he made and there is no distinction in his love between male and female, then we should shout that story from the rooftops. We (those who have the responsibility of telling this great story) should not make those who don't know the story work so hard that they have to twist their language to fit in. They should not have to learn a secret code about what we "really" mean by the word son. . .wink wink. . .in order to get the point.