For all my love of language(s), and my conviction that I'd consider murdering the Queen's English to be a capital offence did I not think death penalties to be barbaric, I shall admit that the occasion I referenced in the title to this post was quite extreme. My younger sister and I both were alumnae of the same college, and receive their newsletter, a section of which lists the names of former students and their family members who have died. When my father died in 1997, I dropped a note to the alumnae office, listing his name, then 'father of Elizabeth Melillo and Theresa Gibson,' with our graduation years. Now, technically I suppose that this was correct enough - it hadn't occurred to me that I had to write "of" more than once. Sadly, in the next newsletter I found that both Sam and Theresa were listed among the dead...
A more unfortunate situation happened when I received some correspondence, related to history, from a Polish man who was familiar with my Internet site. In one email, he had mentioned certain aspects of the 20th century history of East Europe - an area in which I am not particularly knowledgeable. I'd found his information interesting, and, in my response, had begun one sentence with "I understand that Stalin..." Though the correspondent's English was fluent, he mistook my meaning of "It is my understanding that..." for "understanding" Stalin in a sense of sympathetic insight (for Stalin, not the people of Poland!)
Indeed, the use of words can be wonderful and problematic. (Though even my worst blunders will never match those of, for example, George W Bush, whose choice of words was unmatched when, in seeking to enlist support from moderate Arab nations, he announced a crusade. Or of the great Pope John Paul II, who, in explaining that Jesus did not bestow priesthood on his own mother, made it seem women should not be allowed at the Eucharist were the rhetoric taken to its logical conclusion. I'm glad I never was a public figure - I'd flip if my blunders were in world-wide headlines.) Yet, today, I wonder how many people even own a dictionary - and shake my head at how some seem to be misinterpreting 'on purpose'!
Just this week, I saw an Internet site (for a major newspaper) which had a story about someone who took having been told "there could be consequences" as a death threat. (The newspaper has a comments section, and reading this was vaguely entertaining, more because those who were the funniest clearly did not intend humour in the least.) Now, haven't we all known, throughout life, that many actions, whether good or bad, have 'consequences'(synonym "results")? Since technological advances of which I've heard recently, astonishing though many are, to date include no mention of Internet communication from the after-life, presumably all contributors on the thread were alive - and all have faced consequences of one sort or another. To leap to the assumption that this means 'death' clearly is excessive.
Of course, I have long been irritated by that the perfectly respectable term "issues" now is assumed to mean "problems." I have faced the anger of someone I knew who thought my reference to diversity (of thought) was racist. (I shouldn't feel too badly, I suppose - recalling a media report, some years ago, about someone who assumed racism when a public figure used the term "niggardly.")
I think all of my readers get the picture now. It is not one of my prolix periods, the more because I already posted on the blog this week. But, naturally, I have one final comment - which is troubling me because I so love contemplating the Trinity.
I can well understand that 'inclusive' language has been a trend recently, and in many cases agree. (It took me a long time to resign myself to that, if one does not want to say "he or she" in every sentence, one must use the quasi-singular. I still wince slightly at writing "Everyone put on their coat...", because I imagine one person becoming a crowd, or at least a duo.) Still, it irks me when documents, which use the form "he" (a standard until very recently!), are followed by (sic.) I am irritated the more when anyone insists that quoting "peace on earth to men of good will" (and so forth..) would lead females to think salvation is extended only to the male of the species. Oh, indeed there are those with louder mouths than mine (and who often want only to cause trouble) who will insist they thought this - but, overall, such an assumption is an insult to the intelligence of every woman in the congregation!
Though I am not one to see it on every corner, sexism indeed does anger me. (Racism infuriates me as well. I am sorry that 'diversity,' a marvellous word, has been twisted into some negative racial term.) Heaven knows, in my decades in management, I often was infuriated by how enduring it is - and those who speak of 'sexism in the Church' (...I'm a medievalist, and can write about that some time on request...) are naive if they think that it is exclusive to the Church (or that there are not other varieties which are far worse.) I don't want to get on a tangent on that subject for the moment. I am just going on record that even I, a far from timorous creature with a strong Bo-Peep tendency, who supports a healthy, Christian feminism, cannot stand the distorted, apologetic, sometimes silly twisting of the words of the liturgy. I see it as an insult to women rather than as affirming.
Yet what inflames me most (and, sadly, not with the fire of the Spirit) is when the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be mentioned, lest this be found sexist. (I've mellowed, my friends. You should have heard me thirty years ago, when I saw it as the epitome of pomposity when every religious group around seemed to be adopting "unity in diversity" as their slogan, when Karl Rahner had used that term to refer to the Trinity itself. When I still saw myself as a militant, embodied Michael the Archangel, I may have raised my sword... Though I will bring out the sword one last time and decapitate any fool who turns what the great Rahner said into racism for referring to 'diversity'... what a shame, considering he survived the Holocaust..)
The Trinity is a concept which utterly captures me. (I'll save my exegesis and redaction comments for another day - but anyone with the least interest can read through the New Testament, or any writing of the Fathers or great theologians, or any page of Christian liturgy dated earlier than 2000, and note the magnificence of any reference to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.) Perhaps I cherish this most, in my own prayer life, because it is something we never can understand, and can express in praise - God is so beyond our understanding, yet the doxology is perfect in worship. We are acknowledging a God of Love and one who is 'relational' for eternity - even if He is unknowable because of the limitations of our understanding.
Some of the substitutions for references to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are not worth noting, but I do not even care for "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier," for all that I love all three divine images. Indeed, God creates, redeems, and sanctifies - but this refers only to His relation to us. Father, son, spirit - these remind us that the Persons of the Trinity 'relate to' and love each other. (They obviously do not create, redeem, or sanctify the other Persons! Nor is creation, redemption, or sanctification of the cosmos the exclusive function of one Person.)
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment