Another great Mary Daly-ism: "When God is male, man is God."

TEC had some great trial inclusive-language liturgies * in the late 1980s: whatever happened to them, anyway?

JC Fisher

* Not excluding male God-language, but including female God-language, too. Jesus gathering Jerusalem "like a hen gathers her chicks" was a fave! :-)

Many of those liturgies are still in trial use. I used to teach workshops about them, in the 1980s (what a nice memory). And, interestingly, I found that it was more powerful to talk about "expansive" language than "inclusive" language. We don't need to throw out any of the metaphors we use to try to understand God, even as we expand our use of these metaphors.

In the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

I am a very liberal person, and am all for full inclusion of all people in the church. But this "inclusive language" would stamp out all the beautiful liturgy that drew me to TEC in the first place. If it does find its way into the Episcopal Church it would probably drive me, the liberal gay guy, to the Roman Catholic Church.
"In the name of [what might be the Father or Mother, or in fact neither gender at all] and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.....

[Editor's note: Thanks for your comment. We need your full name next time.]

I am all in favor of inclusive language. We need it to help draw people who once felt excluded, to find themselves included in our worship.

I guess I am more in favor of a "Both/and" approach to inclusive language rather than a "one or the other" approach. If God is beyond our gender references, then I am of the opinion that we should be able to use them all interchangeably.

I think we should be as open to calling God: Creator, Servant and Life-Giver as we are Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is as much room to refer to God as our Mother as much as calling God our Maker, Rock, King, Queen, as well as Father.

I am a new Episcopalian, so feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but I was taught that one of the beauties of being Episcopalian and even Anglican, is that we are open to many expressions of who God is to us. Does being more open to inclusive language really mean totally loosing what we have always known and said? On the flip side, are we so hooked on things as we have always hand them, that we cannot make room for other expressions of who God is to each of us, who are so diverse? Is there a way to work towards and pray for a "both/and" approach to inclusive language? Or must it be all or nothing?

I think to worship God, means to be open to how all of us pray to and worship God. I think it means being open to all of the possibilities of who God is and what God can do. God uses our history to guide us into our future. In our future God can teach us what we did not know about our history. How can inclusive language hang on to both, and still serve everyone?

Our problem with inclusive language is so much more about us than about the God we sing. Maybe this uncomfortable moment is exactly where God wants us to be.

Once attended a conference and the speaker asked the audience: "Name the 3 men who most influenced, and continue to influence, the Church - other than Jesus Christ or St Paul." Luther made many lists, Cranmer made many. Speaker finally said, "I am surprised no one listed the Virgin Mary" Many cried out, "But you said men!" "Just so," the speaker said ruefully, "so now please stop telling me that "man" is gender-neutral and obviously includes all humankind. Indeed it may, but few of you seemed to realize that here, today."

What has actually been done is not that radical! For a Scottish take on it http://revruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/inclusive-language-liturgy/

I'm perfectly content with the direction of expansive language represented in Enriching Our Worship. Some of the older trial liturgies seemed a little contrived. I would like to see traditional liturgical texts like the paternoster, gloria patri, gloria, kyrie, sanctus, etc. left unaltered but balanced with female and impersonal names, and there are rich precedents within the tradition for doing so. The real test however is how the People of God can receive these developments. I think that EOW is close to where we will end up. I'm not entirely happy with everything, but I'm not entirely happy with Eucharistic Prayer I which I refuse to use or C which I will use but gritting my teeth. I would like to see the principle of conformity taken more seriously. The liturgy should conform to the rubrics and canons.

I'm perfectly content with the direction of expansive language represented in Enriching Our Worship. Some of the older trial liturgies seemed a little contrived. I would like to see traditional liturgical texts like the paternoster, gloria patri, gloria, kyrie, sanctus, etc. left unaltered but balanced with female and impersonal names, and there are rich precedents within the tradition for doing so. The real test however is how the People of God can receive these developments. I think that EOW is close to where we will end up. I'm not entirely happy with everything, but I'm not entirely happy with Eucharistic Prayer I which I refuse to use or C which I will use but gritting my teeth. I would like to see the principle of conformity taken more seriously. The liturgy should conform to the rubrics and canons.

I am only concerned when old poetic language is entirely ruled out. We become detached from our history, and risk making the time-sensitive portions of scripture unintelligible.

For example: when we curtail language about slavery (and the imagery that portrays God as Master) we lose sight of what Jesus means when he says, 'The Truth shall make you free.'

Another example: the NRSV, in Galatians 4:7, chooses to say "child" instead of "son" -- thereby missing both the human participation in the "Sonship" of Christ, but the distinction about coming of age indicated by the movement from being a "child" to being "an adult with right of inheritance." I admit it is a thorny translation problem if one wants to avoid "son" but I'm not sure the trade-off in this case is satisfactory.

The restriction of poetic language will leave us in a very prosaic world. Let us expand, rather than prune, our imagery for that which can only best be imaged in the faces of all our sisters and brothers.

I find it interesting that so many seem to conclude that expansive language in worship cannot be poetic and beautiful -- that says a lot all by itself as to how deepseated is the need to see God as male.
There is already much feminine imagery in scripture. The language of God lifting us on eagle's wing refers to the mother eagle helping her fledglings learn to fly. The parable of the housewife looking for the lost coin is also lovely. Human language is not up to the task of describing God, but in our efforts to speak of our experiences of God, I believe using feminine imagery can be as poetic and lovely as using masculine imagery. And certainly it will help the millions of women who constantly have to "translate" themselves into the worship service.
If you males don't think that's distracting in trying to worship, think of sitting through a service that used ONLY female pronouns not only for God but for human beings.
For example, how included would you feel upon hearing, "This is a true saying, and worthy of all women to be received . . ."
Language does matter. And it can even be explansive AND lovely.

ed. note
Thanks for posting but please add your name next time

I guess that the really important consideration here is the question of the bottom line. What's the real priority in this? Is it poetic language, history, tradition, or being transformed? Does our constantly evolving understanding of God and God's call to us allow us to hold onto things that, although they sound really lovely, do not speak to God's vision of a world transformed in which there is no group or individual who are left out of the feast? Is our worship merely to edify and not to invite us to grow beyond where we are at this moment? Good questions and the answers remain to be revealed.

from Susannah Clark - posted after the NZ Facebook story:

Well I like the term 'Holy One'. On the naming of the Holy One and the implications I really recommend Elizabeth Johnson's "She Who Is" although of course there are many other good books. Personally I believe that because of its almost universal usage, we retain the name 'God' and its pronunciation, but encourage people to spell it 'Godde' which is exactly halfway between culturally male 'God' and culturally female 'Goddess', because down that middle spelling we look through gender to the One who transcends gender, while fully knowing what it feels to be both male and female, and creating us male and female, in the divine image. By retaining 'Godde' I think you allow others to journey in their own way and own speed, and they hear 'God' in your prayers, or think they do. But you still know you're praying to the one who some days may seem like a faithful father to you, and on other days seems to hold you at breast like a baby, while you rest in her love. Or, as I sometimes find, Godde is like a female friend next door, who comes round the back way to my kitchen, and sits down for a coffee, and we chat and enjoy each other, and I think Godde can be right there at our level like that - far removed from the images of the avenging warrior, which historically coloured the imaging of that male God. Because really, Godde goes far beyond just male or just female. As I've found as a transsexual woman, gender is part of who we are, but personhood involves so much more. Surely the same with Godde?

I know people are uncomfortable with God as Lord, but when the Scriptures and the Tradition speak of a Lord that actually cares about YOU and isn't just in it for what he can get out of you, that was really really revolutionary, shocking even. A Dominus who cares? Really? A Kyrios who only wants the best for you, instead of just you grovelling all the time and making him money? Oh my! Imagine such a thing, to people of that time and thereafter! We cannot forget that, must not. If there is to be feminine or gender-neutral imagery, graft it on thoughtfully and carefully, but a thoroughgoing substitution will mean we lose too much.

I certainly never meant to suggest that expansive language can't be poetic! On the contrary, a recovery of the rich biblical mine of language (Rock, Mother, Storm, Shepherd, Servant, etc.) has long been part of my own practice. (Following Jesus' example!)

It is the "neuter" or abstract language that I find falls flat.

I am the author of the comment about how expansive language can also be lovely. Sorry I forget to sign my name.
Katie Sherrod, Fort Worth

Thank you, Ann Fontaine, for re-posting my comment in the right thread!