More ELCA 'Inclusive' Language

2/17/2014

Exposing the ELCA has been documenting for years the ELCA's removal of masculine words for God from their language, publications and teaching. Here are two more examples:

- From an article about ELCA Presiding Bishop Eaton -

"The work of the Church, Bishop Eaton said, is not so much saving souls. 'That's God's work, and if God loves God's creation, you're part of God's creation; you're going to be loved.'" - Read here. (Besides ELCA Presiding Bishop Eaton's obvious choice to not refer to God with male pronouns, I find her statement saying the ELCA is not about saving souls to be a doctrine of the devil.)

- This is a comment from someone on an ELCA clergy page -

“We are struggling with the lack of inclusive language for God in our anthems. Our dir of music ministry is careful not to violate copyright so does not want to change the words to better reflect a nongendered reference to God. What have you found helpful?
Alt music source?
Is it legal to change words intentionally?
I suppose we can ask permission to swap words (not the music) to the copyright holder.
We are not going to 'just do it' so i need concrete ideas please.
I'm eagerly awaiting your collective wisdom. Thanks!”

7 Comments

Didaskalos link

2/16/2014 11:35:34 pm

Bishop Eaton posts an impressive entry in the ELCAspeak Masculine Pronoun Eradication Contest. It could take over the top spot from Mark Hanson's 2010 entry: "You can bet your life that God will be faithful to God's promise, because God bet the life of Jesus on God's faithfulness..."

James Young

2/17/2014 06:55:29 am

As with most things with roots in the far Left, the problem is with the premise: that the existing language was somehow EXclusive.

Gerald Wendt

2/17/2014 07:12:40 am

Bishop Eaton and her colleagues hold erroneous ideas about English grammar. The word "he" doubles as a gender-neutral pronoun. WEBSTER'S SEVENTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (1963) defines "he" as "that one whose sex is unknown or immaterial" (definition 2). And THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE by Strunk and White says this:

"The use of 'he' as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. 'He' has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances.... It has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect. Substituting 'he' or 'she' in its place is the logical thing to do if it works. But it often doesn't work, if only because repetition makes it sound boring or silly. Consider the following unexceptional sentences from THE SUMMING UP, by W. Somerset Maugham:"

'Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is himself not quite sure of his meaning. He has a vague impression of what he wants to say, but has not, either from lack of mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in his mind, and it is natural enough that he should not find precise expression for a confused idea.'

"Rewritten to affirm equality of the sexes, the same statement verges on nonsense:"

'Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is herself or himself not quite sure of her or his meaning. He or she has a vague impression of what he or she wants to say, but has not, either from lack of mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in her or his mind, and it is natural enough that he or she should not find a precise expression for a confused idea.'

"No one need fear to use 'he' if common sense supports it. The furor recently raised about 'he' would be more impressive if there were a handy substitute for the word. Unfortunately, there isn't...."

Chemnitz

2/17/2014 01:33:43 pm

Bishops Eaton should re-think Bishops Eaton's theology before Bishop Eaton speaks for Bishops Eaton's self again.

2/18/2014 09:36:40 am

"...if God loves God's creation, you're part of God's creation; you're going to be loved." Here Bishop Eaton seems to have forgotten that Satan and his demons are also part of God's creation. They are not "loved" if "loved" means "saved."

Jef Walker

2/18/2014 11:01:46 am

While not normally grammatically correct, if you believe in the Trinity, why not use 'They' in the manner that 'We' is used in Genesis 1:26.

2/19/2014 09:34:37 am

Substituting "they" for "he" wouldn't work as a general rule. A quick glance at the Psalms will provide illustrations of why it wouldn't work. See 1:1-2; 2:2; 4:3; 11:5-7; 24:10; 30:4-5; 33:12; 76:1-3; 118:1-4; 135:4-6.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

More ELCA 'Inclusive' Language

Leave a Reply.

Dan Skogen

Categories

Archives

Home

Share

Exposed Blog

HELP

Contact