

In the history of all language, worldwide, grammar was used to denote male, female, and even neuter. Most modern languages today, in word forms and grammar, indicate gender distinctions. English is somewhat of an exception. For example, the word pilot does not reflect male or female. Yet English does indicate the diminutive, i.e. defining something smaller (or female). Thus, when we say policeman, we should be able to say policewoman, just as we say drum major (male) and drum majorette (female). If in slang we say copper for male policemen we should be able to say copperette for policewomen. But the Feminist know this would be devastating to an image they try to portray. Therefore, they attempt to brainwash the culture by changing the language i.e. police officer. In the big, secular universities, Socialism has pushed for brainwashing us with language changes to reflect its agenda. The godless, liberal Brite Divinity School published a paper [whose title is] Guidelines For Inclusive Language. The purpose is to cause their students to no longer see the differences between men and women and to attempt to change the God of Scriptures to a wimpy Feminist! If Brites statement that language has often been used to perpetuate biases and stereotypes among persons and groups is true, is it really necessary to throw out language forms used for eons which describe God and men and women as different?! Brite makes no bones about the fact that they are into punitive brainwashing. The paper concludes with the fact that those who do not comply with the change of the English language will be counseled personally if they resist to use the inclusive language. They must understand that exclusive language is not only objectionable but also inaccurate and biased. Therefore, if one is truthful in saying that there are differences between men and women, one is quickly labeled discriminatory. Who says the language is objectionable, inaccurate and biased? The Socialist and Feminists thinkers of Brite who are out to change the way we think. Lets look at some examples of what the Brite Paper says: You can no longer use the term men in a generic, broad way (as has been the case of centuries in language. Even the Greek text uses the term men, masculine, in an inclusive way.) You must say brother and sister. You can no longer say policewoman. You must say Police officer. You can not say stewardess you must say flight attendant. You can not say girl when referring to women. (This is strange because in World War II, the men overseas were called boys and the women waiting on the home front were called girls. These were terms of endearment and no one was insulted. Why are they now? Because of a philosophical shift from love, care, home and hearth to hate, competition and power. The bitter pill is hard to swallow.) You can not say women doctor nor male nurse. You can not refer to a woman by the color of her hair. You can not use Mrs. Or Miss. The indistinguishable Ms. is to replace both. When speaking of God, you can not say Lord, Sovereign, or Father. These words imply masculine and a stereotype masculine model of rugged independence ! This is a No, no! You can not use King but must replace it with the neutral sovereign! You must speak of God as the deity, or Gods self. You can speak of God as the Father-Mother God! Or, Our Father/Mother God, who are in heaven. On the Trinity you must say: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Mother of us all! The Brite Paper concludes by saying The aim is not to censure but to encourage and support one another toward a consistent and responsible use of inclusive language as most suited to Christians doing their best to respond to the Gospel. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? What does the Gospel have to do with identifying the difference between male and female and how the Bible represents God the Father to us?

