The Extremes of Inclusivity

My church is of the modern sort, most notably in that they practice "inclusive language." Mostly, this consists of using God's name frequently instead of replacing it with pronouns, which, lamentably in English, are gender-specific. ("It" just doesn't work the same way.) For example, instead of saying "Eric went out and got in his car," you'd say, "Eric went out and got in Eric's car." From what I recall from my schooling, this is actually an OK thing, as many of the original texts did use gender-neutral pronouns. It took some getting used to, to start the traditional prayer with "Our Creator" instead of "Our Father," but I can adapt. To a point.

A few weeks back, the "good Samaritan" parable was read, and there were many references to "the one" in place of "he." Again, I imagine it's possible the Aramaic text was using gender-neutral pronouns, although the context of the story makes it unlikely the subject was female. But you'd have a harder time selling me on the concept that the texts never used the equivalent word of "he" when referring to Jesus. And yet, some of the traditional Christmas carols sung in services this month have had "Son of God" lyrics replaced with "Child of God," and other similar substitutions. Um, I don't think so.

Of course, that's what I get for being a Religious Studies major in college. Maybe someday I'll write the blog entry I'm pondering on my second major, Psychology.