Inclusive language is like saluting Hitler

Yes, it sounds like Touchstone could use an acquaintance with Godwin's Law.

I also like it when people act like it's only now that outside cultures are influencing Christian thought. The idea that women are "secondary and subordinate" was completely original to Christianity, apparently.

Camassia

This is more of what I've come to expect from Touchstone. Whereas a mag like "First Things" is thoughtful and well-written, I find that the Touchstone folks tend towards nastiness. I still read their stuff online, but they get no money from me.

There's a difference between being a thoughtful conservative and an embittered reactionary; Mere Comments often seems to be in the hands of the latter.

Hugo

I think you are misconstruing the Hitler-salute thing. Touchstone is NOT saying Christians who like/want inclusive language are Jew-killing Nazis. No, they are saying that we can sometimes have a tendency to bend to societal or cultural pressures over things that *appear* innocuous at first. The Christians who saluted Hitler did so because they didn't think he was going to be the genocidal mass murderer that he was, even though the salute violated their Christian beliefs. Similarly, Touchstone is asking if we are caving in to non-Christian pressures to adopt a mindset that is anti-Christian and what the potential long term effects of this mindset could be. Take out their Hitler reference, and you are still left with a valid question that you have not answered or responded to in any substantive way.

Nathan [littlefights@hotmail.com]

As soon as you drag Nazis into the argument, you lose the argument. Why use that comparison at all? C'mon, it's ridiculous and insulting.

They say those who advocate inclusive language are succumbing to an "anti-Christian ideology." In the entry I linked to above, where I said I blogged on this before, I think I showed that it is not anti-Christian at all.

Touchstone despises feminism and sees it as one monolithic, culture-destroying entity. They freely admit they believe Christianity is patriarchal. Of course they'd think any notion that it might not be patriarchal at all is bending to societal pressures. I agree that some societal pressures or movements are dangerous to our faith, like the church growth movement which is based on marketing that turns the Christian into a consumer. Inclusive language in regards to men and women isn't, because it's merely altering language to reflect the truth that the male is not the "defining" or "iconic" member of the human race. That is not a biblical truth. Various biblical writers may say women are subordinate or reflect the glory of man, but it is never said that women are less the image of God, or that there is only one defining member of the human race. Touchstone is actually taking a severe form of patriarchy that is not Christian at all and imposing it on the text, thus they are doing exactly what they accuse others of.

Jennifer:

Touchstone is not saying that women are "less the image of God" either and to construe them as saying so is to fail to take into account their whole argument. That you come away with that implication is fine, but you must state that it is your inference, not their statement.

Furthermore, that you paint Touchstone's "severe form of patriarchy" as "not Christian at all" fails, as Nathan has pointed out, to actually deal with Touchstone's argument. Furthermore, compare Touchstone's "patriarch" with other forms, say in a Muslim country. Touchstone comes off as clearly egalitarian.

Furthermore, Touchstone is not reacting to feminism, but to egalitarianism (though Touchstone is critical of feminism, or at least some forms of it). The two--feminism and egalitarianism--are related, but not the same thing.

You are a very careful thinker and writer. I'm afraid that the problem with Mr. Hutchen's Nazi reference is not that it wasn't valid (as Nathan has pointed out) but that it is so emotionally loaded that it ends up sidetracking the debate. Which it has clearly done here.

Clifton D. Healy [chealy5@yahoo.com]

I'm sorry, I was referring to a previous comment about women sharing the image of God in a derivative way, which was not from Touchstone itself, but written in another blog by a Touchstone writer.

How can Touchstone come off as egalitarian and oppose egalitarianism? Their view of patriarchy is nicer than the kind under the Taliban in Afghanistan, certainly, but I'm only addressing Touchstone's ideology that views males as the defining members of the human race. I infer from this that women, as a category of humans, are somehow not quite as human as men. If I cannot represent the human race, how am I as human as a male? I call that "severe."

The point of my post was not to engage in the argument again, which we already did and racked up 29 comments over it. My point was that we did so without anyone mentioning Hitler. As soon as you identity your opponents in an argument as supporting Hitler or Nazis, you're name calling. It is rarely ever a valid reference.

"This position reminds me very much of the Christians who are willing to strip crosses from their churches because the changing culture demanded church be less depressing and they didn't really intend anything unorthodox by it."

That is a much better argument, and if I had read that, I would still disagree, but I wouldn't have gotten quite so angry. I tried to briefly address the argument when I said it's not the same thing because altering language is only reflecting the theological truth that men are not the defining members of humanity, and that I do not find support for their argument in the bible, even in texts about the headship of men. I already addressed the argument of why I support inclusive language for humanity in my previous post, which I linked to.

I honestly do not have time to develop the argument further tonight but I may next week, though I'd probably just say more of the same thing - it is not succumbing to an anti-Christian ideology demanded by culture because the idea that men and women are both fully representative, defining, etc. human being is not anti-Christian and is in fact biblical.

Thank you very much for the compliment. My rule is not to post when I'm angry, since it clouds my thinking, but sometimes I just ignore my own rule.

Hi Jennifer, I agree. Comparisons with Hitler should be kept for those things which resemble him and his regime. I also agree that women are also in the image of God and it is silly that we can't sometimes simply point out when a passage is referring to both men and women. Otherwise we are left with the ridiculous position that whenever the bible says "men" it only refers to men. "By this will all men know you are my disciples". Of course this doesn't mean women won't know too. I think there is an element of fear that can motivate a Christian argument - i.e. if we are inclusive we will let feminism and anti-Christian philosophy in. We don't need to be knee-jerking from fear. A mature perspective sees the obvious and has no problem with it. Well, those are my thoughts.

Catez