If I misrepresented StephanieP I hope she lets me know. I tried to represent her position well.

I agree that it is a bad practice.  I know they aren't the same as scripture, but the decision to neuter these hymns follows the same spirit that has attempted to neuter the Bible, and, persuade the Church (successfully, I might add) that gender roles are antiquated, bad, and, sometimes, down right evil.  

@Xbeautifully_broken_downX@xanga - That's great. I'd give up all forms of contemporary music in church to have a church that loved the hymns. I agree with your thoughts on changing them as well.

@dustysojourner@xanga - I agree with everything you've said. Though, thought I would comment that I'm reading a gender-inclusive bible, the NRSV. While I don't like the philosophy that goes into it, it is otherwise a good translation, and finding a full apocrypha in a bible is rare.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - If they think hymns referring to men when women could also be included, they are going to really dislike Paul when he says women are to be quiet in church, submissive to their husbands, and aren't to teach men. That said, I don't think I would leave a church because they sang gender-neutral hymns, but I would certainly be watchful of whatever lead to that as @dustysojourner mentioned.

I don't know why a person educated enough to look into the context and see where brethren/men/etc could be referring to women as well would be offended by such a thing. Deliberately looking to be offended, perhaps? I really do see it as a non-issue. Women that are offended by such a thing, I would think, are likely to be really offended that the church doesn't have female pastors too. Unfortunately, I think it would be a sign of a church headed toward the liberal and emergent movements. So, while not enough to make me leave on its own, definitely something I would be weary about.

@MagisterTom@xanga - I remember having a bible study about this...

My Pastor said he doesn't think there is anything wrong with a woman pasturing, as long as she isn't trying to pastor over the men. That a woman can not understand how to teach a man how to be a man.

Personally I think that goes both ways... A woman can not teach a man how to be a man, just like a man can't teach a woman how to be a woman. We can communicate with each other and explain how we could work together as one but I don't think men really understand a woman and a woman can never really understand a man.

I am a young Christian though... Young in age an spirit.

@MommyMarty22@xanga - I don't think any of the people who want more gender inclusive language are trying to erase history or even change who the author was (those would be foolish pursuits to say the least). I don't even think they are attempting to censor the songs. I'm not sure that accurately describes the motives of those who seek the gender-neutralize hymns. In fact, many may say that they respect the message of the artwork and the spirit of the author so much that they want to alter it in order that the message is more clearly communicated to a new and different audience. 

What's your take on the final paragraph in this article (the one that begins with the *)?

@MommyMarty22@xanga - Either I didn't understand your response or I wasn't clear on my question. I was wondering what you think about the idea that art which aims to express the message of the gospel ought to belong not merely to the human artist who created it but the entire Body of which that artist is a part so that it may be altered in a way that allows other Body members to approach it in the way the original artist had intended.  What are your thoughts on that?

@MommyMarty22@xanga - A pastor is over the congregation in general. Though, we do tend to have youth pastors, but those aren't truly biblical either. (Not that they are necessarily a bad thing, there just wasn't such a thing back then.) Paul does instruct older women to teach the younger, and there are definitely things they can teach other women that men wouldn't teach so well. I would have no idea where to start in teaching a woman to be a good wife, aside from Scripture directly stating those things.

But, for teaching in general, the pastoral role is given to men, and it is clearly stated that women are not to be a pastor. I wouldn't be opposed to women having a role in the church, even paid, that was for the purpose of teaching women. Though, I don't think in most cases there is such as need, as the congregation likely has older women who are quite capable of teaching the younger women without needing it to be a full time paid position. Discipleship tends to be done in smaller groups or one-on-one, that is just the assumed role of the more mature Christians, not something to expect to be paid for.

@MagisterTom@xanga - Let's forget the concept of cultural change and exchange it for the concept of cultural consistency. I'm talking about putting yourself in the shoes of women who don't experience a culture change but live in the knowledge that cultures have almost always been male dominated and chauvinism has oppressed them worldwide. In that mindset, people aren't saying they want to make slight changes to hymns to avoid being offended but to feel included. Not being offended is one thing but feeling isolated, devalued, or marginalized is another thing. The issue is that people feel this way or don't want others to feel this way. If the message isn't compromised why is it a bad decision to alter the hymns? You mentioned that you agree with the mentioning earlier of a spirit of deception. How does that play into this pursuit of making others who are a part of the kingdom and living under a history of oppression feel liberated and included when they have at times felt marginalized and doing this through the means of altering hymns to be gender-neutral? Does that make sense or did I muddy the water? BTW, I'm just exploring thoughts with you. I'm not trying to say you're wrong on this.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - It isn't that it has to come out of intent to deceive and change the church. But, I would be concerned that was the case, or that it might go in that direction after. (See the emergent movement, eventually God becomes a female…)

@TheGreatBout@xanga - "Though possible, none of the men or women I
know who desire this feel that way. They don't at all see it as an
insult but as an act of loving and humble service."

You may not know but as a young christian my self, I know a lot of agnostics and older teen's who are looking toward Christ who may. This could be a turn off to them and push them away.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - That would be something I would like to do.  When I have opportunity, I will do my best.  

@MagisterTom@xanga - I don't think it takes away but enriches (obviously lol). The issue isn't the author, who in all likelihood has passed, but about the living people right now and how we are helping them to encounter Christ and his truth. Maybe it's just me but I think any Christian author who creates art for the Church who would also be offended by later alterations of that art for the same purpose he had, which didn't demean the art, is probably creating the art more for self than God or community. I know that's not a popular perspective though. I'm pretty willing to give what I create to others for their own use.

Do you think the forward progression hermeneutic helped lead churches to become abolitionists?