Issues Regarding
Inclusive Language
A concern for inclusive language bespeaks the church’s
emerging conviction both that the diversity of the people
of God is to be acknowledged and embraced in such a way that
all may feel included, as well as the realization that every
reference to God is limited in its capacity to express the
reality and mystery of the One who has so variously encountered
us. (Definitions and Guidelines on Inclusive Language, 197th
General Assembly (1985))
The 210th General Assembly (1998) approved a recommendation
from the Advocacy Committee for Women’s Concerns to:
Direct the Office of Theology and Worship and Research Services
to conduct research to assess the current status of the church
on inclusive language policy at all levels.
In response, the Office of Theology and worship mailed questionnaires
on inclusive language policy to every presbytery and synod.
All seventeen synods and 134 out of the 174 presbyteries (77%)
replied to the questionnaire. All results are on file in the
Office of Theology and Worship and in the Office of the Director
of the Congregational Ministries Division. Moreover, the Office
of Theology and Worship has attempted not only to meet the letter
of the GA referral, but to go beyond it to get a clearer picture
of attitudes and practices related to inclusive language issues,
especially in public worship. Working closely with Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.)’s Office of Research Services, the Office
of Theology and Worship commissioned a Presbyterian Panel in
February, 1999 focusing on inclusive language issues. Research
Services also adapted the questionnaire used in the Panel for
all faculty at Presbyterian seminaries and a random sampling
of students at all the Presbyterian seminaries plus the non-Presbyterian
seminaries associated with the Committee on Theological Education
(Fuller Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary). The Office of Theology and Worship collected inclusive
language policies from these seminaries as well.
In order to help the church think through the issues raised
in the research, the Office of Theology and Worship convened
a group of five people to help interpret the data in a theological
context. The members of that group were: Linda Bixby, Elder,
First Presbyterian Church, Westerville, Ohio; Mark Labberton,
pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Berkeley, California; Kevin
Park, Assistant Director, Asian-American Program, Princeton
Theological Seminary; Amy Plantinga Pauw, Professor of Doctrinal
Theology, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary; Sally
Willis-Watkins, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Flemington,
New Jersey.
"Definitions and Guidelines on Inclusive Language"
(1985) continues to be instructive, especially in its careful
definitions, distinctions, and practical suggestions. The 210th
General Assembly was wise to ask moderators of governing bodies
to renew their commitment to the "Definitions and Guidelines."
The work of the 197th General Assembly should continue to be
the basis for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)’s interpretation
and practice. Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say,
true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts:
the knowledge of God and of ourselves.
But, while joined by many bonds,
which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy
to discern.
— John Calvin, Institutes,
I.i.1
Just as our knowledge of God and of ourselves is closely intertwined,
so there are strong bonds between our language for God and our
language for ourselves. Yet it is important to reaffirm the
distinction made in the Inclusive Language Guidelines between
language for the people of God and language for God. The issues
are related, but the differences between them require that they
be discussed separately.
Language for the People of God
The studies conducted by the Office of Research Services indicate
that a commitment to inclusive language for the people of God
reflects the consensus of the church. Significant majorities
of church members, elders, and Ministers of the Word and Sacrament
prefer the use of inclusive language for the people of God.
Moreover, practice in public worship appears to reflect this
commitment. This development should be celebrated. Significant
change has occurred over the past twenty-five years in the church,
both in attitude and practice. While it is tempting to look
only at what has not been accomplished, it is important to take
note of a sea-change in language for the people of God. Change
in language is difficult to effect, but congregations and individuals
within the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have been responsive
to the call for language that is inclusive of all people.
This is not to suggest that work is complete or that the issue
is settled. While movement away from exclusive masculine language
for the people of God has been largely successful in public
worship, it is much more difficult to ascertain how language
is used in Church school classes, youth groups and adult study
groups.
The issue of language for the people of God in the reading
of scripture has been influenced by the adoption by the New
Revised Standard Version of the Bible. However, many congregations
still use the Revised Standard Version or the New International
Version, both of which use "man" as the generic term
for human beings. The Office of Theology and Worship encourages
those congregations to look again at Guideline 1.B of the "Definitions
and Guidelines on Inclusive Language:" "Decisions
to use inclusive language are in order when the lector has been
able to discern that the intention of the original text has
been preserved."
"O the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge
of God!" (Romans 11:33)
The glorious reality is that there is one, living God, whom
we know and trust. Our words for God are never adequate to the
riches of God's being. Yet our language for God does not simply
project our desires or wants. We believe that we can speak truly
of God because God has revealed God's self to us:
Revelation is self-disclosure of God. Thus God is both its
source and its content. Because God is the author and end,
judge and redeemer of all creation, revelation also illumines
our understanding of ourselves and of all other creatures.
But it is first and foremost the revealer that is known in
it. ("The Nature of Revelation in the Christian Tradition
from a Reformed Perspective," 199th General Assembly
(1987))
Our language for God should be appropriate to what we believe
has been revealed about God and God’s way in the world.
The primary issue in our God language is to be as faithful as
possible to God's revelation to us. This requires seeking the
guidance of the Holy Spirit as we practice attentiveness to
God's witness in Scripture and to the pattern of God's Word
made flesh in Jesus Christ.
The Reformed tradition understands the ever-present danger
of idolatry. Thus we must not pretend that any of our designations
for God ever "comprehends" God. We must not act as
though we "own" the name of God, refusing to allow
anyone to refer to God except in a limited number of ways. We
must also not manipulate the names of God, as if the primary
reason to speak of God were to achieve some pedagogical or psychological
end.
The church should be thankful to those who raised before it
the issue of God language, in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Being pushed to consider the full range of language for God
in the Bible and in the tradition has enriched the church. We
have been challenged to move beyond reliance on a few familiar
terms. In fact, the consensus of the church does reflect the
language from the "Definitions and Guidelines:"
Our language about God should be as intentionally diverse
and varied as is that of the Bible and our theological tradition.
We reaffirm the use of "intentionally diverse and varied"
language for God in worship. However, we note that the word
inclusive does not refer in the same way to language
for God as it does to language for the people of God. When discussing
language for the people of God, the issue is clear: "the
diversity of the people of God is to be acknowledged and embraced
in such a way that all may feel included." That understanding
founders when referring to God. Who or what is it that needs
to be included when referring to God?
The issue is not reducible to feelings of inclusion in worship.
Further, the data from the Presbyterian Panel tells us that
four times as many church members feel "more included"
in worship when God is referred to exclusively as "He"
than do when referred to as "She." If feelings of
inclusion wee the predominant arbiter of God language, the church
might feel justified in maintaining the status quo.
The standard for God language is the language of the Bible
and the language of our theological tradition. This is not to
say that we are restricted in our language for God only to terms
that have been used in the past. Since the Christian tradition
is alive and ongoing, we are to hope for the gift of new language
as well. Sometimes being faithful requires "singing to
God a new song." Thus the Office of Theology and Worship
suggest an important shift in terminology: from inclusive
language for God to faithful or faith-building
language for God. This shift does not signal a retreat from
the issues raised in discussions of inclusive language, but
shifts the term in the debate to one that is more helpful and
in keeping with the Reformed tradition.
An important key in judging the faithfulness of a religious
tradition is to look at the way of life it nurtures. The language
of worship is central to helping us understand God and God's
relationship to us. Limiting our language for God to a narrow
range of comfortable images carries the risk of limiting our
understanding of our relationship to God and to each other.
Although the research demonstrates a consensus regarding a
desire for diverse and varied language for God, there are significant
divisions in the church regarding specific usage. The primary
locus for disagreement is over the place and form of Trinitarian
language.
Christian worship and theology is, by nature, Trinitarian.
It is Trinitarian, not because a particular formula is used,
but because the doctrine of the Trinity sums up the good news
of the gospel. The church has consistently confessed God as
the Father who sends the Son for us and our salvation, in the
power of the Holy Spirit. This confession, articulated in many
ways throughout the tradition, proclaims that God is for us.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not simply a confusing add-on
to a more fundamental idea of God; Trinity is our very understanding
of God.
The Office of Theology and Worship is concerned over a growing
phenomenon occurring in the church: a functional Unitarianism
that results from a concern to avoid traditional Trinitarian
language. "Definitions and Guidelines on Inclusive Language"
singles out Trinitarian language for special attention. There
is much at stake in this theological issue. Because of concern
about using the masculine language of Father and Son in worship,
the liturgies produced by many entities within the church and
in many congregations abandon traditional Trinitarian language
and substitute frequent repetition of an undifferentiated God.
Concern for those who object to masculine images for God and
a concern for those who might object to alternative language
for God lead to bland liturgical compromises that rob Scripture
and tradition of their richness.
The Trinitarian designation, "Father-Son-Holy Spirit,"
is an ancient creedal formula and as such should not be altered.
It is deeply rooted in our theological tradition, is shared
widely by the church catholic, and is basic to many of our
ecumenical relationships. It is not theologically acceptable
to refer to the persons of the Trinity in terms of function
alone (e.g., Shepherd, Helper, Refuge, Creator, Redeemer,
Sanctifier). The church needs to seek new terms which refer
to the being of the persons of the Trinity (cf. Calvin, Institutes,
I.i.3, 5, 16, 17). While the language of the Trinitarian formula
should remain unchanged, we must still remember that this
formula is not the only way by which we refer to God, and
that efforts to express the fullness of our knowledge of God
in terms of being and function are to be encouraged. ("Definitions
and Guidelines on Inclusive Language," 197th General
Assembly (1985))
The precise phrase "Father, Son and Holy Spirit,"
rarely occurs in Scripture, although its presence in Matthew
28:18 shaped the church’s baptismal practice. Other Trinitarian
formulations are also present in the Bible, notably II Cor.
13:13, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
But as "Definitions and Guidelines" note, "Father-Son-Holy
Spirit" is the ancient creedal and baptismal formula, deeply
rooted in our theological tradition, and shared widely by the
church ecumenical. Thus the church requires that baptism must
be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The growing
use of functional language for the Trinity (e.g. Creator, Redeemer,
Sustainer) is not a theologically adequate substitute. This,
of course, does not mean that one cannot ever use functional
language to refer to God. Even Calvin called the first two books
of the Institutes, "The Knowledge of God the Creator"
and "The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ."
God is indeed our Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. The problem
arises when these appropriate functional terms are directly
identified with the persons of the Trinity, suggesting "one
person, one job," obscuring the relationality within God's
own being that the doctrine of the Trinity affirms. "Definitions
and Guidelines" encourages the church to continue to explore
new ways to refer to the being of the persons of the Trinity.
Nonetheless, the church must be vigilant lest it lose the heart
of its faith unwittingly.
Issues to be Addressed
Among of the difficulties regarding God-language in the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A) are the fracture that occurs along a number of
troubling lines. For instance, in questions regarding the use
of gender-inclusive forms of Trinitarian language, between 5%
and 16% of church members and elders approve of these forms
while Ministers of Word and Sacrament and faculty response ranged
between 28% and 78%. The primary worship planners and shapers
in the denomination have significantly different views than
worshipers and elders. This helps to explain some of the tension
present in local congregations.
However, there is an even more troubling division on God-language:
gender. On gender-neutral language for Trinity, female ministers
regularly answer in the affirmative at a rate two times higher
than their male counterparts. Theologically educated women are
far more likely than any other subgroup to prefer gender-neutral
language for the Trinity.
By identifying these significant divisions in the church, we
can see why discussions of God-language become so difficult.
While church members and male ministers overwhelmingly favor
traditional Trinitarian language, every single grouping of female
ministers, faculty and students prefers non-traditional Trinitarian
language. The church must be sensitive in these discussions.
This is especially important in a situation where many of the
tensions of the discussion may break down on gender lines. The
church needs to be open to new ways of thinking even while it
attempts to be faithful to the tradition.
As we continue this discussion on language use in the church,
we must also pay attention to our obligation to the church’s
children. It is vital that we teach our children the ways of
God:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that
I am commanding you today in your heart. Recite them to your
children and talk about them when you are at home and when
you are away, when you lie down and when you rise. Bind them
as a sign on your hand, fix them as an emblem on your forehead,
and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your
gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9 NSRV)
We must be able to speak vividly of the biblical God if we
are to pass on to our children the fullness of authentic Christian
faith. The Bible is a rich and complex story of God’s
relationship to us. The more we immerse ourselves and our children
in the stories of the Bible, the more images we find to enrich
our worship and prayer. When we read the story of the Exodus,
we understand how God is our deliverer. When we listen to Jesus’
lament over Jerusalem, we see how God can be like a mother hen.
When we feel the rush of the flames of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost,
we experience the power of God. When we hear the command to
baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, that name expresses for us the whole Gospel message.
When we delve into the rich variety of biblical language, our
faith is strengthened. As we teach the church’s children,
we should teach them all the good news of God’s revelation.
We have a rich and vital faith to pass on.
- The 212th General Assembly (2000) reaffirm "Definitions
and Guidelines on Inclusive Language" adopted by the
197th General Assembly (1985), and that it request the Office
of Theology and Worship to make "Definitions and Guidelines
on Inclusive Language" available throughout the church.
- The 212th General Assembly direct the General Assembly Council,
through its Office of Theology and Worship, to constitute
a task force from January 2001 until December 2002 to study
the doctrine of the Trinity in Presbyterian theology and worship,
and that the task force report to the 215th General Assembly
(2003).
- The 212th General Assembly direct the Office of Theology
and Worship to review and propose revisions to "Presbyterians
at Worship in Mass Assemblies" (1985) and report to the
214th General Assembly (2002).
|
