On Words and Vocations

(from the November 2007 issue of The Lutheran Witness)

By Uwe Siemon-Netto

    Not so long ago when my clients allowed me to travel First Class, I deeply offended a member of the cabin crew on an international flight by addressing him in the way I had addressed his colleagues ever since taking to the air 50 years ago. “Steward,” I said, “may I have a Scotch, please?”

    He mustered me reproachfully from top to toe, and then hissed: “Flight attendant, please!”

    “Oh,” I replied, “so you are an attendant -- like a parking lot attendant perhaps? Is that what you want to be called?”

    He threw back his head in outrage and wafted down the aisle, never to return to my part of the cabin. Clearly, a backward klutz like I wasn’t worthy of his service. Fortunately, a stewardess who did not mind being called a stewardess eventually took my order.

    Now you might wonder why I would want to regale you with this anecdote in a Lutheran publication. I have two reasons:

    1. To all intents and purposes, this “flight attendant” objected to his vocation as a steward, a perfectly noble and ancient job description for one who serves – in fact who serves in a managerial position. Had he mastered his English mother tongue he would have known that the most important officials in royal households and the first of the great officers of state in England are called stewards. Like all vocations in the secular realm, this one too is from God. Viewed from a Lutheran perspective, the apostle Paul’s admonition from 1 Corinthians 7:20, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” applies to cabin crews as much as to anyone else.

   

    2. Why have airlines abandoned this elegant title for the admirable people looking after passengers on planes – employees I have even seen perform surgery in a medical emergency high over the Arab Sea, men and women prepared to die in flames as they are trying to help travelers out of a crashed aircraft? Because “flight attendant” is “gender inclusive,” while “steward” is not. A steward is always male; his female counterpart is called a stewardess, and such a distinction is not politically permissible in a demented era when ideologues endeavor to undo the distinction between male and female, a wonderful gift that is part of God’s created order.

    When ideologues set out to undo created order they first destroy the beauty of a naturally grown language. Two decades ago, they created the absurd idiom, “waitperson,” in order to spare servers in restaurants to be verbally discriminated as “waiters” or “waitresses,” whose sanity, on the other hand, mercifully survived so that we now still have waitresses and waiters in our midst, unless of course they invite you to address them by their first names, which reminds me of a marvelous cartoon in the New Yorker magazine decades ago.

    It showed two rather fay men, one a waiter, the other a guest holding a long cigarette holder. Said the guest to the waiter, “I say, Bill, would you mind very much if I just called you, ‘waiter?’” Based on the doctrine of vocation, I would speculate that the author of this cartoon might have been a Lutheran.

    I suppose the destruction of the English language began when feminist ideologues fabricated the unpronounceable title, Ms. This occurred at about the same time when men of a certain sexual preferences hijacked the beautiful vocable “gay,” which still makes me angry. It precludes my professing the lovely sense of gaiety that overcomes me when, for example, I relax with my wife savoring a bottle of wine and listening to a Mozart recording. Let it be known that I resent this theft.

    My wife, by the way, has been heroically refusing to respond to “Ms.” for four decades. At first, she returned every letter addressed to “Ms. Siemon-Netto,” until nobody who knows her dared to address her that way. Those who have not encountered her obduracy -- insurance or credit card companies soliciting our business come to mind -- ought to know that their mail winds up in the wastepaper basket, unopened. My wife, bless her, is an Englishwoman who loves her native language and will not allow ideologues to bastardize it with vowel-less sounds.

    What troubles me about today’s politically correct neologisms is that they so much resemble the absurd new words created by murderous regimes. So grotesque was the distortion of job descriptions in Communist East Germany that the citizens of this now defunct state poked fun at this trend mercilessly, calling cleaning women “semi-circle engineers,” to name one example. I hope that the street sweeper in St. Augustine, Fla., who recently handed a friend of mine his business card, did so with an equal sense of the absurd. This ridiculous card identified him as an “environmental specialist.”

    But that’s harmless. Think of the inscription, Arbeit macht frei (work sets you free), above the Nazi extermination camps or the label Hygiene-Amt (office of hygiene) camouflaging the true task a department at SS headquarters in Berlin, which was find the most efficacious way to slaughter Jews, Gypsies and others deemed “unworthy of living” by Hitler and cohorts.

    It doesn’t take much imagination to draw a parallel between misnomers like these and those of some present-day institutions doing the exact opposite of what their names suggest. Planned Parenthood does not plan parenthood but assists people in becoming non-parents, and “women’s health centers” – a term I have even heard a (non-LCMS) Lutheran pastor use in a sermon -- are in reality slaughterhouses for unborn children.

    New Testament Greek has a word for such distortions: diaballo, literally, “throwing across.” It has given the devil his name.

    That’s why Christians should beware. As a matter of fact they should resist any willful deformation of their language because it inevitably creates a lie. This thought occurred to me when I recently visited a perfectly honorable corporation, which refers to its hundreds of thousands of employees as “associates.” But this is nonsense because it says precisely what they are not.

    Associates are companions, partners, perhaps junior partners, but partners still. Associates are not people “human resources officers” – meaning, folks from the personnel department – would ever frog-march off the premises when the “associates’” contracts are terminated. What’s wrong with calling a worker just what he is – a worker? As in the past, we would do no more than identify a worker by his God-given vocation until he rises in rank -- to director, for instance.

    Which reminds me: The title, “director,” has also fallen victim to our contemporary inclination to overstate our import. I come under this rubric. Officially I am the director of the Concordia Seminary Institute on Lay Vocation.  But whom do I actually direct? Myself and Aaron Franzen, a part-time graduate student, who assists me two hours per workday.  In truth, I am just a retired old journalist put out to pasture at our seminary in St. Louis charged with pondering a Lutheran doctrine I happen to find extremely significant. So I’ll start with myself: What, I wonder, would be a good title for me if indeed I needed one?

    I’ll let you know when I have found the answer. Please stay posted.

Comments

[Erich Heidenreich, DDS]

How about "coach" for your new title?

Coach Siemon-Netto. I think you automatically get to wear a whistle if you have that title. Cool!

That one gets a lot of use at SAM's Club. I think the "coaches" direct the "associates."

But, seriously, weren't you hired to "coach" all of us laity on how to apply the Lutheran doctrine of vocation to "the game" of our lives?

Erich (the "filling" station attendant) Heidenreich, DDS

[Mike Perkins]

I'll never forget the lady who's last name was Gay. The first time she introduced herself to me, she apologized for her name. After that, I resumed my use of the word gay in everyday conversation to describe how I was feeling.

[James]

Hmmm. In the dialect known as American Southern English, a formal term of address and title for an adult female has been pronounced "Miz" for at least a century; that was true fifty years ago, anyways, when I was growing up. For more formal occasions, one might use "Mizziz" or "Missis" for a married woman; I recollect older folk would even betimes use "Mistress". I think it rather nice that the rest of the country has adopted this Southernism.

I'm a gent who prefers and mainly uses the generic "he" rather than "he or she" most of the time; I even prefer 'steward' to 'flight attendant'. I also find much politically correct language rather repelling at worst, affected at best.
Yet, when reading of the encounter on the aircraft, I couldn't help but hope that the 'steward' or 'flight attendant' or 'sty-ward' or 'servant-of-those-who-fly' was already a Christian strong in his faith. Or, if he was a weak Christian or a non-Christian, I hope that he remained unaware that the gent criticizing his preference of title was a Christian--especially one with a vocation to teach future pastors. Otherwise, Satan would have an opportunity to steer him away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There was no indication that the man in question was dissatisfied with his vocation, only that he had a preference for a certain title. I'm not sure which of the 613 commandments prohibits airline 'stewards' from using the title 'flight attendant', but it doesn't appear that the Law was well proclaimed in the encounter. Certainly the Gospel was not present.

Every quotidian encounter does not have to result in sharing the Gospel. But no encounter should intentionally put up stumbling blocks to the Spirit's work. As a person who has fallen short of God's commands in this regard, I know that I am also criticizing my self when I write this. Yes, there are even times whatever one says to benefit one person can be used to harm another. Thanks be to God for His love and forgiveness.

[Rebochan]

That's funny...I've been on more than a few flights and just saying "HEY! YOU!" has sufficed quote fine for getting service.

But I highly doubt the exchange in the opening took place from any flight attendant (oh, I'm sorry, steward) that actually expected to keep their job.

Seriously, this "war" against political correctness has got to stop. Don't we have more important things to worry about as far as religion goes beyond harping on whether people should change their job titles to fit your preconceptions?

[Lainie]

Mr. Siemon-Netto, perhaps the gentleman in your anecdote found you, not "a backward klutz," but a discourteous, pompous pedant.

[Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto]

Phew, and I feared I might be accused of sexism, male chauvinism, misogyny, homophobia, and societal retardation. Thanks for giving me a break, Lainie!

[Mathew]

Mr. Siemen-Netto,
I applaud your courageous statement of fact when it comes to the fundementals of lay-vocation. I don't think it is taught nearly in-depth as it should be. (The honor God bestows on our work) Which is clearly the main intent of your article. I would find it hard to proclaim my gaity in front of my two homosexual practicing aunts. But if someone doesn't say it, then the lost may just stay that way, lost. Regards

[fwsonnek]

"I suppose the destruction of the English language began when feminist ideologues fabricated the unpronounceable title, Ms. This occurred at about the same time when men of a certain sexual preferences hijacked the beautiful vocable “gay,” which still makes me angry."

Oh my! people are still getting knotted up in their underwear over this one?

Using THIS logic of course you are consistent and you STILL refer NOT to blacks or african-americans but rather you consistently refer to them as "Negros" or "Colored Folk" ????

This does not need to be a big issues really. I am sure you can find other equally useful words to describe what you and your wife do over a good bottle of wine. you can still use the word gay in private without confusing each other I hope.

plenty of words change over time to mean different things

life before the computer:

Memory was something you lost with old age

an application was for employment

a program was a tv show

a cursor was a person who used profanity

a keyboard was a piano

A web was a spider's home

A virus was a flu

A cd was a bank account

A hard drive was a long trip home

A mouse pad was a mouses home

And if you had a 3 1/2 inch floppy, you just hoped no-one ever found out...

even more:

SPAM was a tinned cold meat spread.

A site was where you built a house.

A link was part of a chain.

Home was where the family lived.

Click was the noise you could make with your fingers.

Return was a type of bus fare.

Search was what you did when you lost your keys or watch.

so all of these words changed but none of you would say anything about them being "high jacked" by computer companies or Bill Gates nor would any of you say that these words should only be used for their original meaning.

gay Look up gay at Dictionary.com
1178, "full of joy or mirth," from O.Fr. gai "gay, merry," perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"). Meaning "brilliant, showy" is from c.1300. OED gives 1951 as earliest date for slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.), but this is certainly too late; gey cat "homosexual boy" is attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of "Underworld & Prison Slang;" the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations. But Josiah Flynt ["Tramping With Tramps," 1905] defines gay cat as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him." Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Rawson ["Wicked Words"] notes a male prostitute using gay in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.

[Brian]

I can't help but notice how many people seemed to have missed the point of the article while tripping over quibbles.

[Joel]

Deformation of the language is brother to dumbing-down of the liturgy.