The adjective is a great descriptor. It provides nuance to the otherwise banal. Things stop being so plain and take on visions in our minds. The dog is just a dog. But a large black dog, with short coarse hair and a large head may bring to mind the image of a Rottweiler, rather then a cute Chihuahua.

Of course to call an adjective a descriptor is also rather redundant. The very purpose of an adjective is to provide nuance and description to a noun. A car becomes more than a simple car when we refer to it as a sports car or an SUV.

Adjectives provide colour, depth and texture to our language. They open a creative world to us and allow us to communicate specific images and specific ideas. The adjective is a powerful tool in communication.

The adjective can also be dangerous, it can oppress and it can most definitely be used to maintain systems of oppression. I can think of many examples, but I would like to bring to your attention three examples that I believe can help open up this dialogue to us so we can see the problems that can arise at times when we use a descriptor on a noun.

First is Gay Marriage. The implication by putting the descriptor on this noun, marriage, is to somehow quantify the marriage as different then the average or regular marriage. While it is true the couple is homogenous, I fail to see how a gay marriage is any different then a heterosexual marriage. In the morning the gay couple does not get out of their gay bed, have gay breakfast; drive their gay car to their gay job, while living their gay life.

By using the descriptor to describe the marriage of a homosexual couple it can lead to a second-class status. There is marriage and then there is gay marriage. And somehow that doesn’t seem equal to me.

This problem also applies with gender in the work force. My wife is a computer programmer. This is the work she does. By referring to her, as a girl programmer, is to somehow say that she is different then a regular programmer and what she does is not the same. It separates her from her colleagues and others her. It is to say she is different. Maybe that different is special, but it still separates her from her colleagues and implies, in a sense, that she programs differently or writes girl code.

I believe this is also the case for women clergy. Whether male or female is irrelevant, the same vocation is being fulfilled. The same sacraments are being celebrated. To call a priest a woman priest, is to somehow separate her from what her male counterparts do. She is after all simply a priest. No better or no worse then a male priest.

The adjective, while it can add so much to our language and communication can also help maintain systems of oppression and separation between us as a people, a society and in gender relations.

And I believe this is also theologically dangerous and counter-intuitive to Holy Scripture. It was after all St Paul who said in Galatians (3:28) “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”