Such Language

Actually, no, this is not about swearing and course language. I care about that but not so much.

This is about the former hot button issue “Inclusive Language’. Just because it is not really talked about any more does not mean and should not imply that the issue is cold and settled. “Stasis”, I think is how I would describe it. A new balance has been achieved that people have found comfortable in the church. Comfortable is not the same as satisfied. Nor is comfortable in really a Christian value. At our church in Montpelier, the stasis we have achieved means there are very few times that we refer to humanity as “men”. And references to God are rarely female but are seldom male. There are still more male than female images but no one looks pale, nauseous, or perplexed when we use a female one.

For those who think that inclusive language is a good/right/appropriate/helpful thing see these as all good steps. Such language seems to speak to a wider or fuller image of God. Expansive language for an expansive God. Language to expand our understanding and understand our expanding God. True, anything said about God that implies that God is one thing but not another is… wrong? misleading? blaspheme? inaccurate? heresy? bad? unhelpful? kaka? But what sin is it when we insist that such male language for God is better than other language choices? God is Spirit so lets us a lot of male language…

And such language about people is also less used at Bethany Church. Since it had become clear that it simply was not true that “everyone understood that ‘men’ referred to all people”, it was important that our language reflect what we wanted to say. Inclusive language is more accurate and accurate, less one sided and domineering as a label for people. And the fact that some refuse to give up such language seemed to confirm that it was/is used as a tool for/of domination/superiority.

Me? I think equating men with humanity was originally used because it DID reflect a truth about the relative place of men and women. Men were dominate and so to refer to humans as men would have been natural and reflecting the importance of men. I am not sure that such language was resisted by some/many people because they wanted to maintain that level of male priority. I often sense that people resist change, especially initially because of the implications of any change. I think people resisted the change to inclusive language because they got tired of so many things changing, so many assumptions proven to be without foundation, so many foundations cracking, and so many times they were told that something was needing to be changed because it was wrong. No one likes being wrong.

And so they ask if they have been wrong all this time? If it is not broken, why fix it? Instead of such language as wrong and broken, I think we are all better of if we suggest the need for maintenance, up grades, and repairs in such language. I also think that we who advocate such up grades need to acknowledge that at some point in time we may see the changes we prefer will also need maintenance, up grades, or repair. There is always more truth and light to break forth from God.

True, some people do not use inclusive language at all. Will not. Such language seems unnatural to their mouth and ear (because it is not their habit). Such language concerns are not really important to them and seem just ‘politically correct’ fluff. Inconsequential. For others, such language is the dross that should be chucked to the side after the refiners fire. It is crap and no good. And yes, many point to the bible and say we should use male language for God the Father and mankind because the bible does. I am not burdened with being a literalist so this is not a concern of mine. I am also not impressed with this logic.

But still, some see that it is a shame that such language that worked for centuries needs to be changed. But, they might add under their breath, at least it has not completely affected the really important parts of church life. And this is a truth that concerns me.

I notice that teens will intellectually talk about God as neither male or female – as a spirit or “the force” or what ever – but then in writing and talking always use a male pronoun for this genderless spiritual God.
I notice that our Doxology is still largely sung as “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
Baptisms are still done in the name of the “Father and Son and Holy Ghost”.
Hymns that use a lot of male language for both humans and God are not rejected. (They now feel unnatural to my mouth and ear because of my habits…)

It is almost like the stasis is balanced so that minsters can say what they want in their liturgy and sermons, but the really important stuff has not changed. Hmmm? [It is sort of like winter or spring vacation in High Schools where the only things that students are really on break from are classes – sports and extra curricular activities continue because they can not stand a time away. You can do what you want with the classes, but do not stop the game schedule or play practices or homework! Some things are important and others, not so much.] Ministers can say whatever they want in sermons, but do not change the really important things like the Lord’s Prayer!

I would love to hear that Bethany Church would like to take another step in terms of accuracy in language. I think that a rejection of somethings would actually say more than I would want to. There are times that God does seem very much like a Father to me. In part because I had such a great father. BUT, we could baptize in the name of Jesus Christ like so often happens in the New Testament. I find it powerful to pray, “Abba, who art in heaven…” And there are so many Doxologies that say so many wonderful things about our God and our thanks! Couldn’t we explore some of those? It is when we keep the same Doxology music but, use different words that we seem to reject what was, suggesting that it was wrong. What if we simply expand what we say and not replace in a rejecting/demonizing sort of way?

Some of the reworkings of hymn words are clunky. BUT I am more interested in theology and saying what I think/believe than I am a interested in aesthetics and saying what is lovely or pleasing. But again, using a different hymn altogether is less abrasive than changing words that are known and maybe loved to words that imply the old is not as good and are clunky to boot.

We may be at stasis, but I sure hope it is not static. But it seems to be the sort of thing that needs to be done without pronouncements, resolutions, and rules. I think it will happen when more/most people in their own conversations let go of the male oriented language and find ways of letting change be more about what is and less about what was. As John McCutchen says, “There is no future in the way things use to be.”

Course, I am just thinkin’ here. Tomorrow, I may think a new thought.