Editorial
107
Editorial
Man and Woman
P a u l E. J o h n s o n , w h o is the a u t h o r of a n article o n basic beliefs i n this issue of the Journal, has m a d e a s u g g e s t i o n so o b v i o u s a n d c o r r e c t t h a t we c a n o n l y say of it, " W h y d i d n ' t w e t h i n k of t h a t i n the first p l a c e ? " W i t h his p e r m i s s i o n , we are q u o t i n g f r o m the letter t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d his article, " W h a t C a n W e Believe I n ? " I began working with the series title, and then came to feel that I needed to say "we" instead of " m a n y So my title is " W h a t Can We Believe In?" My reasons are these. You ask us to take a personal approach to our beliefs. So I need a first-person title, instead of " m a n , " which is third person, general, and refers to others. Yet "we" includes others to speak of o u r c o m m o n condition and what I hope will be a sense of converging beliefs in a time of conflict. Another concern is that we specifically include w o m e n in the co:qcerns of religious faith and leadership. I know that " m a n " in the generic sense includes women, and have often used that clichd myself. But most churches do not ordain women into the ministry or elect them to the highest office:~ of the church as the episcopacy, etc. For the first time the National Council of Churches has elected a w o m a n president. W o m e n now are increasingly sensitive to the way women are being forgotten in theological discussion and education, faculties, and provision for students. Newsweek, December 6, 1971, p. 58, jibes at women at Harvard Divinity School with a headline, " P r o n o u n Envy." W e t h i n k t h a t P a u l J o h n s o n is r i g h t . T h e series shall h e n c e f o r t h be
108
Journal of Religion and Health
called "What Can We Believe In?" We do not want the Journal to be guilty of intentionally or innocently provoking " p r o n o u n envy." T h e Journal has published w o m e n writers in the past and will continue to do so. We have tried to judge all contributions on merit and relevance rather than sex, race, religion or lack of it, nationality, o r any other such consideration. We have rejected some contributions from women, but not because the authors were women. Times have changed a lot in a few years; and, aside from the most obvious forms of male chauvinism that appear in locker rooms, TV d r a m a s and commercials, and, we suppose, in the questions and answers in the press, most male chauvinism now is of the more unconscious sort that Paul Johnson speaks of. We were reminded of this fact recently when we talked with a y o u n g couple p l a n n i n g to be married. We gave them, as we always do, a copy of the service customarily used in our church. T h e bride-to-be looked it over carefully and then said, "Would it be all right if you p r o n o u n c e d us 'husband and wife,' instead of 'man and wife'? After all, do you have the power to pronounce him a man?" We had never thought of it that way, although we have used the formula for years. We quickly consented, and the change will be permanent. H u s b a n d h o o d and wifehood are functions 0f man and woman. T h e church has no right to pronounce anyone a man or a woman. Men and w o m e n are. We think that, along with the obvious necessity of redressing the inequities in wages, professional status, and qualitative recognition of women's achievements and rights, a few small adjustments of the language might help. Sometimes manners and graciousness on both sides can accomplish more than can vituperation and revolution. We are grateful to Paul Johnson for his article and his suggestion.
Harry C. Meserve
107
Editorial
Man and Woman
P a u l E. J o h n s o n , w h o is the a u t h o r of a n article o n basic beliefs i n this issue of the Journal, has m a d e a s u g g e s t i o n so o b v i o u s a n d c o r r e c t t h a t we c a n o n l y say of it, " W h y d i d n ' t w e t h i n k of t h a t i n the first p l a c e ? " W i t h his p e r m i s s i o n , we are q u o t i n g f r o m the letter t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d his article, " W h a t C a n W e Believe I n ? " I began working with the series title, and then came to feel that I needed to say "we" instead of " m a n y So my title is " W h a t Can We Believe In?" My reasons are these. You ask us to take a personal approach to our beliefs. So I need a first-person title, instead of " m a n , " which is third person, general, and refers to others. Yet "we" includes others to speak of o u r c o m m o n condition and what I hope will be a sense of converging beliefs in a time of conflict. Another concern is that we specifically include w o m e n in the co:qcerns of religious faith and leadership. I know that " m a n " in the generic sense includes women, and have often used that clichd myself. But most churches do not ordain women into the ministry or elect them to the highest office:~ of the church as the episcopacy, etc. For the first time the National Council of Churches has elected a w o m a n president. W o m e n now are increasingly sensitive to the way women are being forgotten in theological discussion and education, faculties, and provision for students. Newsweek, December 6, 1971, p. 58, jibes at women at Harvard Divinity School with a headline, " P r o n o u n Envy." W e t h i n k t h a t P a u l J o h n s o n is r i g h t . T h e series shall h e n c e f o r t h be
108
Journal of Religion and Health
called "What Can We Believe In?" We do not want the Journal to be guilty of intentionally or innocently provoking " p r o n o u n envy." T h e Journal has published w o m e n writers in the past and will continue to do so. We have tried to judge all contributions on merit and relevance rather than sex, race, religion or lack of it, nationality, o r any other such consideration. We have rejected some contributions from women, but not because the authors were women. Times have changed a lot in a few years; and, aside from the most obvious forms of male chauvinism that appear in locker rooms, TV d r a m a s and commercials, and, we suppose, in the questions and answers in the press, most male chauvinism now is of the more unconscious sort that Paul Johnson speaks of. We were reminded of this fact recently when we talked with a y o u n g couple p l a n n i n g to be married. We gave them, as we always do, a copy of the service customarily used in our church. T h e bride-to-be looked it over carefully and then said, "Would it be all right if you p r o n o u n c e d us 'husband and wife,' instead of 'man and wife'? After all, do you have the power to pronounce him a man?" We had never thought of it that way, although we have used the formula for years. We quickly consented, and the change will be permanent. H u s b a n d h o o d and wifehood are functions 0f man and woman. T h e church has no right to pronounce anyone a man or a woman. Men and w o m e n are. We think that, along with the obvious necessity of redressing the inequities in wages, professional status, and qualitative recognition of women's achievements and rights, a few small adjustments of the language might help. Sometimes manners and graciousness on both sides can accomplish more than can vituperation and revolution. We are grateful to Paul Johnson for his article and his suggestion.
Harry C. Meserve
