Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Ideology and the Problem of Naming: a Reply

Ideology and the Problem of Naming: a Reply IDEOLOGY AND THE PROBLEM OF NAMING: A REPLY RUSSELL T. McCUTCHEON His thought is redneck, yours is doctrinal and mine is deliciously supple. Terry Eagleton In the essay to which Shannon Clarkson and Pamela Milne respond,' I attempt to make clear what I see to be the difference between gender- inclusive Christian god-language (such as replacing masculine pronouns and metaphors with inclusive alternates), whose motives I termed theological, and generic inclusive language (such as substituting persons for men) which I termed political. Having distinguished between these two, I proposed that the scholar of religion qua scholar had no business entering the first debate over whether the Christian, or any other conception of deity for that matter, had a gender, let alone existed, for that would constitute disputing the characteristics of a deity-a dispute which compromises such a scholar's role. Along a similar line, I suggested that using God as a generic term for the focus (Ninian Smart's term) of a non-christian religious community was improper and reflected either academic sloppiness or, more likely, an implicit Christian bias toward some sort of theology of religious pluralism. ' Shannon Clarkson, "God-Talk: By What Name Do We Call God?," MTSR 3/1 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Brill

Ideology and the Problem of Naming: a Reply

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/ideology-and-the-problem-of-naming-a-reply-KCOPk1hQ7G

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1991 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0943-3058
eISSN
1570-0682
DOI
10.1163/157006891X00210
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

IDEOLOGY AND THE PROBLEM OF NAMING: A REPLY RUSSELL T. McCUTCHEON His thought is redneck, yours is doctrinal and mine is deliciously supple. Terry Eagleton In the essay to which Shannon Clarkson and Pamela Milne respond,' I attempt to make clear what I see to be the difference between gender- inclusive Christian god-language (such as replacing masculine pronouns and metaphors with inclusive alternates), whose motives I termed theological, and generic inclusive language (such as substituting persons for men) which I termed political. Having distinguished between these two, I proposed that the scholar of religion qua scholar had no business entering the first debate over whether the Christian, or any other conception of deity for that matter, had a gender, let alone existed, for that would constitute disputing the characteristics of a deity-a dispute which compromises such a scholar's role. Along a similar line, I suggested that using God as a generic term for the focus (Ninian Smart's term) of a non-christian religious community was improper and reflected either academic sloppiness or, more likely, an implicit Christian bias toward some sort of theology of religious pluralism. ' Shannon Clarkson, "God-Talk: By What Name Do We Call God?," MTSR 3/1

Journal

Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1991

There are no references for this article.