A few comments about the exchanges regarding inclusive
language, discussions which seem to me to touch upon
numerous vital issues.

1. As a writer, I consider it my duty and my privilege
to express my affection (agape) and esteem (Achtung)
for *all* my fellow human beings, and most of all for
those who find themselves slighted or oppressed;
but I reserve to myself the choice of terms in which
I express myself. I insult the very individuals
whose sensitivities I purport to respect, when I
undertake to demonstrate my concern by resorting to
a linguistic style that offends my esthetic sensibilities.

2. A longstanding preoccupation with texts in various
languages has persuaded me that much of the imagery
and many of the ideas implicit in the vocabulary and
syntax of any language are inaccessible to translation.
The Bible, of course, is the most noteworthy example
of a set of translations with wide divergences in the
renderings of obscure passages. The Bible, it seems to
me, is also the most noteworthy example of the manner
in which the translation can complement the original,
and may, notwithstanding irreconcilable differences,
fulfill a function no less meaningful and holy.
Perhaps the translators of Bonhoeffer are doing
their readers a favor by inserting inclusive language
which may serve to discerning readers as a marker
reminding them that the book before them was composed
not by Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his cell at Tegel,
but half a century later in some paneled conference room,
by a committee of scholars whose work was constrained
by a set of contemporary political considerations.

3. I have not (yet) found any comments by Bonhoeffer
about womens' liberation, but he did not mince words
when he wrote about liberation in general.

      Die Befreiung des Menschen als absolutes Ideal
      fuehrt zur Selbstzerstoerung des Menschen. Am
      Ende des Weges der mit der franzoesischen
      Revolution beschritten wurde, steht der Nihilismus.

           Die neue Einheit, die die franzoesische
      Revolution ueber Europa brachte und deren Krisis
      wir Heutigen erleben, ist daher die ABENDLAENDISCHE
      GOTTLOSIGKEIT. Sie unterscheidet sich voellig von
      dem Atheismus einzelner griechischer, indischer,
      chinesischer und abendlaendischer Denker. Sie ist
      nicht die theoretische Leugnung der Existenz eines
      Gottes. Sie ist vielmehr selbst Religion, und zwar
      Religion aus Feindschaft gegen Gott. Eben darin ist
      sie abendlaendisch. Sie kann von ihrer Vergangenheit
      nicht lassen, sie musz wesentlich religioes sein.
      Eben dies macht sie nach menschlichem Ermessen so
      hoffnungslos gottlos. Die abendlaendische Gottlosigkeit 
      erstreckt sich von der Religion des Bolschewismus bis
      mitten in die christlichen Kirchen hinein. Sie ist
      gerade in Deutschland, aber auch in den angelsaechsischen
      Laendern betont christliche Gottlosigkeit. Sie wendet sich
      in der Gestalt aller moeglichen Christentuemer, ob sie nun
      nationalistisch, sozialistisch, rationalistisch oder
      mystisch seien, gegen den lebendigen Gott der Bibel, gegen
      Christus. Ihr Gott is DER NEUE MENSCH, ob nun die "Fabrik
      des neuen Menschen" bolschewistisch oder christlich ist.
      Der fundamentale Unterschied zu allem Heidentum besteht
      darin, dasz dort unter menschlicher Gestalt Goetter
      angebetet wurden, dasz aber hier, unter der Gestalt
      Gottes, ja Jesu Christi, der Mensch angebetet wird. 

                p.43, Ethik, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Muenchen 1953

I am not sure it is wise to entrust the translation of 
the foregoing passage to the purveyors of inclusive language.
I ask my readers not to confuse Bonhoeffer's beliefs with my own,
which I consider irrelevant to this discussion. I translate the
above as follows:

      "The liberation of mankind as an absolute ideal
      leads to the self-destruction of mankind. At
      the end of the path which was entered upon
      with the French Revolution stands nihilism.

           The new unity which the French Revolution
      brought over Europe and whose crisis we experience
      today is consequently the OCCIDENTAL GODLESSNESS.
      This distinguishes itself wholly from the atheism
      of occasional Greek, Indian, Chinese and occidental
      thinkers. This is not the theoretical denial of
      the existence of a god. Rather this is a religion
      itself, specifically religion from enmity against
      God. Precisely in this respect it (this godlessness)
      is occidental. It cannot let go of its past, it is
      constrained to be essentially religious. Just this
      (constraint) makes it (this godlessness) so hopelessly
      godless.  The occidental godlessness reaches from the
      religion of bolshevism right into the Christian
      churches. Especially in Germany, but also in Anglosaxon
      countries this (godlessness) is emphatically Christian
      godlessness. In the form (guise) of all possible (sorts
      of) Christendoms, be they nationalistic, socialistic,
      rationalistic or mystical, this godlessness turns against
      the living God of the Bible, against Christ. Their god
      is THE NEW HUMAN BEING, whether the "Factory of the new
      human being" be bolshevist or Christian. The fundamental
      difference to all paganism consists in the circumstance
      that there gods were worshiped under (in) human form,
      but that here man is worshiped under (in) the form of God,
      indeed of Jesus Christ."

      The hermeneutic task which some of our list members have 
set themselves is to reconcile Bonhoeffer's global repudiation of
liberation with an hypothetical endorsement of women's liberation.
No one knows how he would have responded to contemporary challenges,
He might have become a feminist, a Muslim, a Quaker, - you name it.
He might be up in the White Mountains this weekend, wooing the voters
to become our next president.

      I don't think I would vote for him. I'm going to vote for
Hillary's husband.

                                         Ernst Meyer