One of the many things I’m grateful to my mom for is passing on some of her dad’s books and correspondence to me. My grandfather, Ralph Whitson Seaman, was a Lutheran minister with excellent diction, a gift for learning languages, and a fascination for words. He also had a good sense of humor.
At that time, his denomination and others were making changes in response to the feminist movement[1] that ranged from updating documents– including the Bible– with more gender-inclusive language to the total eradication of patriarchy; that is “father-rule.” These later changes stretched from perspectives that no longer wanted to call God “Father,” but “Father” and/or “Mother,” to simply eliminating any hint of gender and sex altogether by calling God something generic like “Source of All.”
On April 13, 1979, my grandfather wrote the following to his denomination as a humorous but gentle critique (he was not a harsh man) of those he felt were going too far in trying to diminish the role of men and fathers:
“Dear Sir:
Now that, thanks to the actions taken at our last synodical convention, the constitution of the synod has been thoroughly and mercilessly demasculinized, I feel that the next logical step should be taken…
My suggestion is this: that we go through the clerical role of Synod and the name of every pastor whose present name ends with the hateful suffix, -MAN, substituting the apparently more acceptable term, -PERSON.
Take the name VOGELMAN, for example. Is it not illogical—perhaps even irreverent—for such a name to appear on the clerical roll of the thoroughly emasculated North Carolina Synod? Surely henceforth this fine young pastor should be known as Jon VOGELPERSON!
Then there is the name PERRYMAN, another of our fine young pastors. For shame! Surely, following the 1979 Convention of the Synod, the name PERRYPERSON should appear on our roster. And, if he becomes head of a committee (as well he might), let us be sure to refer to him as CHAIRPERSON PERRYPERSON!
Further, there are names on our roll that end in -SON, a masculine term if ever there was one! Should not a less sex-oriented suffix be substituted? -CHILD, for example, or -OFFSPRING, or -PRODIGY. Dale PEDERPRODIGY sounds a bit cumbersome, though, and PEDERCHILD smacks of being somewhat non-ministerial. Let him henceforth be called Pastor PEDEROFFSPRING!
In this connection, is it not unthinkable that the presidents of our two institutions of higher learning are named AnderSON? Perhaps the lawyers in our midst can help us repent of our past negligence and enable us to compel these noble gentlemen scholars to change their names to Drs. ANDEROFFSPRING.
In the spirit of consistency and Christian love these humble suggestions are being made by the greatest sinner of all, who if the proper action is taken by the Synod at its forthcoming convention, shall henchforth be known as
Respectfully yours,
R. Whitoffspring Seaperson
P.S. Come to think of it, the hallowed term PERSON has as its second syllable the objectionable -SON. So I suppose we can’t get away from it after all. Linguistically, at least, it is still a man’s world. So let’s forget the whole thing!”
Although I don’t agree that “it is still a man’s world” and we should “forget the whole thing,” I can relate to my grandfather’s change-adversity[3] in that many responses to cultural shifts are (or can seem) crazy or extreme. Forgetting the whole thing is usually not the answer, but we do need some anchors to bring a shared script– that is, common ground– to the conversation. It used to be that the Bible and a Christian perspective could help with that, but increasingly, the Bible and Christianity are seen as part of the problem. Besides all the scandals and abuse, one of my observations about especially the conservative American church is that it is fiercely independent and often acts as if it has a stronger allegiance to Patrick Henry than Jesus.[2] Further, it has little interest in pausing and listening well when something like the #metoo movement comes along. Instead of, again, listening well and learning from the stories, many reflexively denounce and circle their wagons. The “man’s world” must be protected.
How about you? What changes to culture do you see as crazy or extreme? With culture shifts that are going on right now like the #metoo movement, what do you think we can learn from? What needs to be “denounced”? If you have time, let me know your thoughts. I would love to hear from you!
[1] The goals of the feminist movement or womens right’s movement of my grandfather’s day were wide-ranging and not always unilateral: “They want equal pay for equal work, and a chance at jobs traditionally reserved for men only. They seek nationwide abortion reform – ideally, free abortions on demand. They desire round-the-clock, state-supported child-care centers in order to cut the apron strings that confine mothers to unpaid domestic servitude at home. The most radical feminists want far more. Their eschatological aim is to topple the patriarchal system in which men by birthright control all of society’s levers of power – in government, industry, education, science, the arts.” (Time magazine’s “Who’s Come a Long Way, Baby?” from August 31, 1970)
[2] “Give me liberty or give me death” seems way more important to many than “Love your neighbor.”
[3] Since this was almost 44 years ago and lest anyone misunderstand, my grandfather was not here opposing gender-inclusive translations of the Bible that do not do violence to God as “Father” such as the NLT or NRSV. He was rather concerned with an agenda that threatened to erase history or a particular sex– agendas that often end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.