Inclusive Language & the Church: A Male God?

 (3rd in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.) 

Much has been written in recent years about the negative effects of using masculine imagery and pronouns when referring to God.

The Scriptures tell us that God is neither male nor female, that God's nature encompasses both male and female characteristics. God is Spirit, indescribable.

Yet when it comes to choosing words that speak of God, we are deeply rooted in patriarchal tradition. World-wide language for God has for centuries been overwhelmingly masculine in biblical translations, liturgies, sermons, hymns/songs and everyday speech.

It has never occurred to some people that the pervasive use of masculine terminology and metaphors to speak of God might result in a skewed conceptualization of God as "masculine."

Author and hymnist Brian Wren (What Language Shall I Borrow?) writes: “To say that language choice is ‘mere metaphor’ or ‘only a matter of words’ is, however, unconvincing if the usage in question is persistent and widespread.

It is a fair assumption that persistent and systematic uses of language express what the speakers really think and match how they behave…[and] that the way we speak of God shapes and slants our understanding of God.”    

Our basic concept of God is formed at a very early age. There is some evidence that very young children may be more aware of God's presence than adults, though they are less able to articulate what they experience.

As an adult, I intentionally try to conceptualize God in broader, non-gender-related terms. But despite my best efforts, I still cannot entirely shake my childhood visualization of God as a blurry, light-skinned, grandfatherly figure with an inviting demeanor, a very large lap and long arms that reach out to embrace me as a child, along with lots of other children.

This imagery probably says as much about my psyche as it does my faith, but I am convinced that my religious upbringing--through books and Bible stories, worship language and song--had a lot to do with my early visioning of a masculine God.

Divinity professor Sheri Adams, ("God and Gender: Is God Male or Female? Both or Neither?"*) writes: “This powerful conditioning starts early and is very pervasive... I have asked many, many people what image they had of God when they were children. Almost to a person, people have responded that they thought of God in male terms.

...Most of the people…have sat through countless worship services in which every reference to God…was in male terms: he, him, his, Father, King, Lord. Every statement we make about God, every picture we produce of God, is an interpretation of God... From our interpretations come our theology and from our theology comes our guidelines for the Christian life.”

We think of God as having human-like qualities because that's what we know best. That's how we relate to others, and we want to have a close, personal relationship with God.

But we must remember that both males and females are "created in God's image." When we use only masculine imagery and pronouns to refer to God, we omit the balance of God's feminine nature.

We're so conditioned to speaking of God in masculine terms, it is often jarring to hear someone use "Mother God" or "She" to speak of God.

[If feminine imagery/pronouns were employed as frequently as masculine imagery/pronouns, there would not be as much activism against gender-exclusive language. But patriarchy reigns supreme, so we press on against the status quo.]

Several years ago I read Wm. Paul Young's wonderful religious novel, The Shack. Young has been criticized for imaging the Trinity as three completely separate human characters. But my favorite part was when he introduced the God-figure, an African-American female cook named Papa. (Talk about scrambling stereotypes!)

Actually, we have a bigger problem than using masculine references for God, or even substituting feminine references. When we think of God only in terms of human-like qualities, we limit our understanding of God's complex nature. God's character encompasses so much more than personhood.

To broaden our understanding of God, we might intentionally lay aside for a while any human-like references:

            · He, Him, His, Himself, Father, Lord, Master, King,

               or even She, Her, Mother, Parent, Ruler

[Note: Laying aside masculine pronouns will be the most difficult part of this exercise. With practice it gets easier. I've been able to avoid referring to God as "He" or "Him" when writing articles, litanies, lyrics, & prayers now for years--it's become second nature.]

Instead, we might speak of God using terms that highlight other aspects of God's character:

            · Names: God, Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM,

                              Divine Spirit, Maker, Godself 

            · Adjectives: Holy, Creator, Loving, Heavenly,

                                  Mighty, Good, Great, Worthy,

                                  Defending, Deliverer, Redeeming,

                                  Perfect, All-Wise, All-Knowing, Cosmic

Ultimately, changing our verbiage will change our thinking and living. Remember, there are "a thousand names for God," and we need to use them all. 

*from Putting Women in Their Place: Moving Beyond Gender Stereotypes in Church and Home, Joe & Audra Trull, authors

Inclusive Language & the Church: Does "Man" Include Women?

(2nd in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.)

American schools have long taught the English grammar rule that allows the words “man” and “he” to refer to both males and females. This practice has evolved along a convoluted path.

According to Carolyn Jacobson (English Department, University of Pennsylvania), "man” was once a truly generic word referring to all humans. One document even refers to a seventh-century princess as “a wonderful man.” But the meaning of the word “man” has gradually narrowed to refer only to males.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, upper class boys needed help preparing for their Latin studies, so English grammar rules were created. As a result, "he” officially came to mean “male, only," not “male and female.”

Then a problem arose with using “they” as a singular, rather than plural pronoun. Eventually, grammarians drafted legislation that included establishing “he” as a generic pronoun. An 1850 Act of Parliament officially stated that “words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females.”

The new law sanctioned "he" as a generic pronoun, but application of that law was quickly ignored. In 1879, for instance, female physicians seeking admission to the all-male Massachusetts Medical Society were denied acceptance because wording in the Society’s by-laws referred to members only as “he.”

English, like other languages, is still evolving. In the 21st century, pronouns like “man,” “men,” “he,” “him” and “his” are officially generic, but in practice they are usually male-specific. Studies show that, despite knowing traditional grammar rules, both adults and children tend to think of male, not female persons when hearing or reading masculine pronouns.

Author Carol Becker (Leading Women) observes that our grammar rules promote a double standard which allows both men and women to hear male language as neutral and female language as gender-biased, noting that "Our habit of using masculine pronouns reminds us constantly that men are active in human history. …Using 'he' to talk about humanity works in favor of men and contributes to the invisibility of women."

In O Come, Let Us Bow Down and Worship, author Deborah Moore Clark adds that we must choose our words carefully, because "language often warps and filters meaning and understanding. …Words, like mirrors, reflect our attitudes…bear witness to our beliefs…influence our behavior and the behavior of others."

That is why gender-inclusive language is foundational to the issue of "women's place" in church and society. The way we speak shapes the way we think and act. Women will never achieve full equality and opportunity as long as female gender is absorbed into male terminology and imagery.

It's not a matter of being politically correct; it's a matter of putting our theology into practice. The gospel message of inclusion cannot be delivered adequately in the vehicle of gender-exclusive language.

The good news is that we can begin changing the status quo, one individual at a time, by adjusting the way we speak and write. It will take sustained effort, akin to becoming fluent in a second language, but it can be done.

Where to begin? People often stumble over feminine imagery for God (a theological issue for some, which I will address in an upcoming article in this series). So it seems easier to start with using gender-inclusive terms (rather than male-oriented terms like "man" and "he") when speaking of males and females as a combined group.

1. A short list of terms that excludes females:

    he             males               lords                  guys

    him           man/men         brotherhood      gentlemen

    his            boys                 mankind            fellowman

    sons         lads                  fathers               brothers

    fellows     kings

2. A short list of terms that excludes males:

    she               woman/women      gals           lasses

    her                females                  girls           ladies

    daughters    sisterhood              mothers    sisters

3. A short list of terms that includes both females and males:

    person                          parent                     people
   
    internationals               sibling                     nations/nationals 
    
    multitudes                    people of God        child/children         
   
    everyone/everybody    one/one's                humans 
   
    child(ren) of God         anyone/anybody     community
   
    mortals                        human race            souls    
   
    they/their                     all creation              family/familial
    
    humankind/humanity   human beings        saint                     
   
    all/some/many/most    co-worker              lovers
   
    laborers together         sage                       neighbor 
   
    group/people group     friend                      loved ones 
    
    world/worldwide          folk                          all races
    
    kin/kindred                  all generations        team
   
    flock/sheep                 tribe                         heir
    
    all ages                      all lands   

The idea is to select inclusive terminology from list #3 (avoiding list #1) when speaking of women and men together.

Remember there will always be naysayers who dig up awkward grammar problems (most of which can be worked around) created by substituting gender-inclusive language. But with practice, everyday usage will become second nature for those who are intentional about including women linguistically.

As author Brian Wren (What Language Shall I Borrow?) notes: "Language, like tobacco, is habit forming. Some patterns of writing and speaking are addictive and may damage both the user and others who breathe the same linguistic atmosphere. If we . . . decide to kick the habit, we may get withdrawal symptoms and hostility or derision from other smokers. But in the end, we shall enjoy breathing fresh air.”

Inclusive Language & the Church: Worth the Effort?

(1st in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.)

Language is powerful. In the broad sense, language as a communication tool takes many forms: behavior, expression, gesture, tone, words. Language has power to bless or curse, inspire or deflate, heal or wound, clarify or confuse, include or exclude.

   

Theologian and hymn writer Brian Wren, in What Language Shall I Borrow?, says that “language has limited power ‘by itself,’ but it gains considerable power—to enable, oppress, or liberate—in the hands of powerful users.”

   

The most obvious form of language is words. Words may be written or spoken, read or sung, whispered or shouted. Language not only puts our thoughts into words; language shapes our very thinking.

       

The nuances of language evolve within cultures and subcultures: countries, regions, cities, even churches and families. In every culture, young children absorb the basic language—including words, phrases, idioms, gestures, inflection, tone—of their parents and siblings, intuiting meaning and usage as they begin to mimic words and phrases.

  

Formal education then fine-tunes children's inherent language skills, teaching them reading, writing, spelling, vocabulary and rules of grammar, all reinforced through repetition. One's primary language becomes second nature at a very early age.

    

Once language patterns are set, it then becomes difficult to make adjustments. Editing our primary language is more difficult than learning a second language because the words and idioms of our primary language come to mind so easily that adjusting the verbiage feels awkward, unnatural.

Making changes that are lasting also requires constant intentionality over long periods of time, which many regard as unnecessary and "too much work."

   

Such is the difficulty when trying to establish gender-inclusive language as normative in patriarchal cultures, where gender-exclusive language has been the primary language for centuries. Ingrained habits are extremely difficult to overcome and replace.

   

When someone points out another's use of gender-exclusive language, the response is often, "Well, English grammar rules say it's okay to use the word 'man' and 'he' to mean 'everyone.' Everyone knows what I mean." [Then why not just say what you really mean; why force people to interpret your words?]

   

We sometimes forget that those default grammar rules were themselves created by men who were educated and powerful. Women--who were not allowed a formal education--had no voice in making them. It is no surprise that the rules favor men over women.

   

Most likely, the rule-makers didn't intend to be "anti-women"; it's just that no one thought to include women in the process. That's one of the biggest problems with women's equality issues, anyway. It's often not so much that women are openly rejected; it's more likely that they are "invisible," simply not thought of.

   

Then when women object to being constantly overlooked, they are quickly labeled as "aggressive" or "domineering," both considered undesirable traits for women who are expected to be "passively pleasant" in the realm of males.

   

It is when women speak up that patriarchal society resists, pushing back towards the status quo. As Wren puts it, "Power over others is usually clung to rather than surrendered."

   

The more patriarchal the culture, the more its women are discounted, overlooked, rejected, considered unimportant, not worth the effort of intentional inclusion. Patriarchal grammar rules are just one of the ways that women are kept "in their place." 

   

Some may argue that perpetual use of outdated grammar rules (i.e., gender-exclusive language) is but a minor problem within efforts to raise the worldwide status of women. That "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words."

   

On the one hand, that is true. But consider that gender-inclusive language is foundational to the entire question of "women's place" in church and society.

   

Language shapes thought; thought precedes action. Until the world speaks of women differently and thinks of women differently, women will not be treated differently in the long term.

   

Gender equity will never be fully achieved in church or society as long as gender-exclusive language is the norm. Only if enough people think gender-inclusive language is important enough to sustain intentional usage long enough will any real progress be made.

   

The larger question is, "Are women worth it?"