Inclusive Language & the Church: Fishers of Men?

 (4th in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.) 

"I will make you fishers of men, fishers of men, fishers of men.

I will make you fishers of men if you follow me.

If you follow me, if you follow me (glory hallelujah),

I will make you fishers of men if you follow me."

This little Sunday School song, attributed to Harry D. Clarke in 1927, was especially popular during the evangelistic eras of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham crusades.

Many children's church songs of that period--"Deep and Wide," "If You're Happy and You Know It," "Climb, Climb Up Sunshine Mountain," "Do Lord," "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam"--were replete with nebulous lyrics. But "Fishers of Men" at least had a solid scriptural foundation: Matthew 4:19.

I doubt this Scripture would be nearly as memorable except for the popularity of the "Fishers of Men" song. I grew up singing it, and still can't read that passage without hearing the tune in my head.

Unfortunately, the song text quotes the KJV, which is known for its gender-exclusive language. The text and tune of this song are so wedded, it's impossible to substitute gender-inclusive language as a correction of the lyrics and still have a decently crafted song.

Whenever I think of this song nowadays, I remember one amusing incident from several summers ago:

Lisa, my friend and ministry colleague, took a group of fourth, fifth and sixth graders to join other Kentucky church groups for a week of camp at a nearby Baptist college. Thursday afternoon of that week I visited the camp, hanging out with our group as they went about their activities. 

After supper, everyone came together in the chapel for a lively joint "worship" service (actually, more of a "God-themed pep rally"). Then each church group gathered in separate rooms to wrap-up some of the concepts introduced during the worship service.

Lisa first helped the children write thank-you notes to various supporters back home. Then she asked them to sit in a semi-circle in front of her on the floor.

After a few minutes of listening to the children relate what they had learned that day, she began a discussion about using our spiritual gifts to further God's kingdom--one of the themes from the earlier service.

Now, Lisa is an excellent preacher. She preaches at our church several times a year, utilizing her well-prepared manuscripts. She is ordained, uses gender-inclusive language and Scripture translations regularly, and is at ease with extemporaneous speaking and facilitating theological discussions.

However, speaking without a manuscript always carries the risk of having to "think on one's feet." and when one has memorized KJV Scripture and sung gender-exclusive songs throughout one's childhood, these are the words that come to mind when speaking extemporaneously about Godly matters. Old habits die hard.

Anyway, back to the story...  As Lisa and the children were well into their discussion about using spiritual gifts, she said to the children: "The Bible says we are to be 'fishers of men.' Now, in order to be 'fishers of men,' what kind of bait should we use?"

One sixth-grade boy immediately raised his hand. “Women!” he blurted, not quite innocently, as his friends giggled.

Caught off guard, suddenly realizing how her inadvertent use of gender-exclusive language had prompted his answer, Lisa threw her head back and belly-laughed at his response.

It is so important that gender-inclusive language be used around children. Children are concrete thinkers, and more often than not they understand words and phrases literally.

Since even "inclusive" Scripture translations use only masculine pronouns for God, it's not surprising that children (and adults) think of God as male.

And since patriarchal grammar rules obscure female gender by absorbing them in terms such as "man," "men," "he," "his," "him," it's not surprising that children (and adults) think that males have priority status over females in both theological and practical matters.

I love the story of the little girl whose bedtime prayers included asking God to bless every family member, friend and pet (current and past) by name. At some point she began to add "and all girls" at the end of her nightly prayers.

Eventually, her father's curiosity finally got the best of him. He asked, "Why do you always add the part about all girls?" She responded, "Because everybody always finishes their prayers by saying, "all men!" Even at her tender age she understood the unfairness of females being left out. 

Adults have the power and the responsibility for helping shape the words and thinking of children—concepts that will follow them throughout their lives. What one learns during childhood "comes naturally" later.

Being intentional about using inclusive language will require diligent editing of our words, but it's important and gets easier with practice. And some songs like "Fishers of Men" just need to bite the dust.

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?"

Baptists and Ordination: Would Jesus Qualify?

Christians, by definition, are followers of Christ. They just differ on “how." How should Christians walk daily with Christ? How closely? Every Christian falls in a different place along a wide spectrum of discipleship practices and intimacy with Christ.

Churches, by definition, are groups of Christ’s followers, disciples supporting each other and joining together for worship and ministry. Again, they differ on "how." What Christian practices should churches follow? How strictly?

Historically, Baptists have valued priesthood of believers and autonomy of churches. As individuals and churches forge unique paths of worship and discipleship, problems arise when some confuse authentic Christian practices (following Christ) with mere religiosities (patriarchal traditions).

Ordination of women has long been a source of controversy among Baptists. Some churches believe there are no gender barriers to ordination. Others believe that ordination is reserved for males, only.

For centuries, Baptists have laid aside their differences, cooperating to facilitate larger ministries together. However, divisions over women's roles (among other issues) have recently prompted fundamentalist Baptists to disfellowship from associations and state conventions any churches who ordain women. 

The only “autonomy” evident among these ousting churches is that some object to ordination of women as pastors; others draw the line at women ministers; still others object to any women being ordained, beginning with women deacons.

The word “deacon” comes from the Greek “diakonos,” meaning “servant.” In the early church, deacons were chosen by their peers in recognition of their gifts of servanthood.

Baptists' perception of ordination has become skewed over time. It has shifted from a recognition of humble servanthood to a position of authority and power, perceived as an election into a class of spiritual elitism.

I once witnessed a misguided deacon candidate "campaigning" for ordination, approaching church members with, "I hope you'll vote for me." Ordination candidates should be selected, not elected. Ordination is not an admission requirement into an exclusive club of elevated spiritual status. 

Baptists have never had consistent criteria for ordaining deacons, ministers or pastors except for a sense of calling by the candidate and an affirmative vote by a congregation. The process has always been up to the ordaining congregation.

Baptists have no age or education requirements for ordination. Candidates in individual churches may be ordained pre-seminary or post-seminary, or with no education at all. I know of some pastors who were ordained in their early teens.

Some ordination councils grill candidates about doctrine; some question candidates' stances on hot-button issues. Others simply say, "Tell us your story of how you've followed Christ."

Oddly, though the IRS recognizes both ordination and/or licensing as credentials for professional ministers (pastors/ministerial staff), many Baptists make a big distinction between the two. Both licensing and ordination require an affirmative vote by a church, recognizing a candidate's spiritual gifts and calling. Ordination adds the laying on of hands.

All Christians are ministers. Professional ministers, licensed or ordained, are those called to vocational ministry. They make all or part of their living doing ministry with churches, denominations or other Christian-related institutions.

Some Baptist churches hire licensed ministers as clergy, not requiring ordination. Others regard only ordained ministers as clergy, whereas licensed ministers are considered laity, reflecting hierarchical thinking that considers ordination a "higher calling" than licensing.

Ordination itself is not divine; it is a human tradition of affirmation. Technically, the word "ordination" does not even appear biblically in the context of choosing deacons.  

As far as we know, Jesus was never ordained by humans, just chosen by God. And the disciples whom Jesus chose (including some women) were never formally ordained, just chosen by him to help with his ministry on earth.

First Timothy 3 is the passage most often quoted by inerrantists as the primary guideline for selecting deacons for ordination. Verse 12 (KJV) states that deacons “must be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,” a statement often used to disqualify women, or men who are divorced, or married to divorced women. [I once heard of a Baptist congregation that even rescinded the ordination of a deacon who remarried after his first wife died--he was no longer "husband of one wife."]

A closer look at verse 12 reveals a huge dilemma for inerrantists. A strict, literal interpretation would disqualify even Jesus, the ultimate personification of a servant leader, as a candidate for ordination, because Jesus is thought to have been single, having no children.  What a loss for any church.

[Jesus probably wouldn’t be ordained or hired by a church, anyway. His treatment of women and his style of ministry were anathema to the hierarchical, patriarchal systems that have prevailed for thousands of years.]

When it comes to disallowing ordination of women, inerrantists must rely on increasingly elaborate theological gymnastics in order to justify their patriarchal practices. Baptist autonomy notwithstanding, when such religiosities prevail, Jesus’ way of leading, thinking and living becomes less and less evident among some who call themselves Christians. What a loss for everyone.

My Bible Clearly Says . . .

Anytime the word “inerrancy” is mentioned, the subject of “woman’s place” is never far behind. Whenever women challenge the status quo, it only takes a moment for husbands and church leaders, threatened by loss of control, to begin intoning "my Bible clearly says…” in an attempt to weight their argument. Patriarchal platforms completely fall apart without the undergirding of “inerrant” scripture.

Inerrantists believe in a “literal” Bible, though only certain translations. They believe that God breathed the Scriptures into the biblical writers who then transcribed God’s words without any “mixture of error." (One would think that if accuracy were so important, an original, complete manuscript would have been preserved.)

Certainly the Holy Spirit worked in the biblical writers’ lives as they wrote, even as the Spirit works through our faith experiences today. God reveals Godself in many ways, but when words are used God speaks through people--and people are fallible. Those concerned about the influence of today’s culture upon Christianity should be equally concerned about the influence of ancient culture upon Scripture.

The human writers of Scripture were deeply entrenched in their patriarchal society, filtering information and experiences through their ancient cultural orientation. The process continues as today's Christians, trying to discern meaning about God and Christianity from the authors' already-filtered words, again filter the texts through their modern cultural orientation, further obscuring the original meaning.

The story is told of a little boy who asked his father, “Daddy, where did I come from?” The father, assuming this was a teachable moment, nervously launched into a discourse about sexuality, to which his overwhelmed son replied, “Oh. I just wondered. My friend, Josh, said he came from Denver, and I didn’t know where I came from.” Human beings cannot interpret divine meaning perfectly because of our limited human orientation.

For inerrantists it’s all or nothing when it comes to the Bible, but flaws don’t mean the Bible should be discarded. Despite cultural influences, the core of God's truth still breaks through. Author Barbara Brown Taylor says that the Scriptures have "human fingerprints all over the place," yet "for all the human handiwork it displays, the Bible remains a peculiarly holy book." One does not have to accept an "inerrant" Bible in order to discover and embrace faith in Jesus Christ.

Around 1990, while studying at Southern Seminary, I loved to wander through the library museum, gazing at the mummy and other Holy Land artifacts. One display case contained a photo of a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Isaiah, clearly showing where a scribe had omitted a sentence, then squeezed corrections above the lines and between columns. I wondered how some biblical scholars could so adamantly support inerrancy--but then I remembered that two central issues surrounding inerrancy are control and patriarchy, especially concerning women ministers.

Inerrantists insist that "my Bible clearly says..." as they quote Scripture passages to support their patriarchal stances. Similar proof-texting has been used to uphold slavery and other injustices over the centuries. Yet inerrantists are very selective when it comes to other Scripture, ignoring verses that are equally as “clear" if taken literally.

Inerrantists insist that the Bible reserves certain church leadership roles for males, only. But do they also believe that the Bible mandates that only Jews (or fishermen, tax collectors, doctors) can be disciples? Or that the Great Commission (Matt. 28: 19 - 20) was given only to the twelve?

Inerrantists cite selected verses to disallow women deacons or ministers, and require women to submit to their husbands. But they ignore other Scriptural guidelines which are equally "clear": women's silence in church (I Cor. 14), women having long hair and wearing head coverings (I Cor. 11). 

Inerrantists require strict adherence to some biblical practices, but broaden others. Unlike Jesus, inerrantists use modern transportation, technology and conveniences. Unlike in Jesus' day, modern inerrantists allow women and men to worship together and use pipe organs or synthesizers during worship.

Inerrantists object to women preaching or teaching men, but they forget that even Jesus was taught by a woman--his mother. Jesus came to earth not in "aged" form (to use Creationists' terminology), but as a newborn baby. He didn't exit Mary's womb speaking fluent Aramaic, already knowing everything about the world into which he was born. Jesus "increased in wisdom and in stature" (Luke 2: 52). We don't know a lot about Mary between Jesus' boyhood and the cross. But if Joseph taught Jesus carpentry skills, certainly Mary also nurtured and taught the very Son of God, influencing him throughout his earthly life.

The inerrancy platform obviously has no merit, largely because inerrantists apply it so inconsistently. One of its main purposes is to keep women "in their place," to retain male domination in church and home. Such a platform, designed only to maintain the status quo, is a platform built upon sinking sand.

An Exercise in Empathy

Racism or sexism? Which is a bigger problem for churches?

Historically, Americans have dealt with racism much longer than sexism. Caucasian vs. African-American (“white” vs. “black”) issues were the focus of civil war over a half-century before the large “women’s rights” protests began.

Both racism and sexism are rooted in hierarchy and power. Women of all races are forced to deal with patriarchal language and attitudes around the globe. Gender issues pervade every race and culture.

In American churches women and men generally worship together in near-equal ratios, although church leadership roles are usually reserved for men. However, congregations tend to worship separately along racial lines—a larger issue than simply worship style preferences. There is little or no racial diversity in most church congregations. Sunday morning worship, in the words of the late Martin Luther King, Jr., is still “America’s most segregated hour.”

Even where whites and non-whites do worship together there are obstacles to overcome. Biblical and religious metaphors still refer to black as evil (dark, dirty, sin) and white as holy (light, clean, pure). Unfortunately, it doesn't require much of a leap for some people to apply the imagery to skin color.

People of color also frequently contend with “white” religious artwork and song lyrics that do not reflect who they are racially. Though the reference is to sins being crimson, not black, I’ve often wondered how African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color could ever sing with a straight face gospel song lyrics such as, “Now wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.”

White-biased imagery is common in our churches, but its inherent racism is much more subtle than the blatant sexist language and patriarchal imagery that is so dominant in our worship services and beyond.

[For the purposes of this article I’m referring to linguistic imagery and references for human beings only, not God. Males and females--unlike God, who is genderless—are gender-specific, and that difference needs to be reflected in our verbiage.]

Women, no matter their race, statistically make up over half of every congregation. Yet gender-exclusive language and imagery are traditionally used in scripture translations and sermons, hymns and choruses, litanies and liturgies. The constant message is that "God says" women must defer to men both in church and at home.

Sometimes the verbiage is ridiculous when one thinks about it. I've often wondered how women can sing "Let there be peace on earth....brothers all are we..." without choking. I once heard a prominent, embattled woman minister joke, "Hey, I don’t have any problem singing ‘Christ Receiveth Sinful Men” to great laughter in her Women in Ministry support group.

Perhaps the following exercise will generate some empathy for those who feel excluded by the sexist language commonly experienced in churches:

1.) For the purposes of illustration only--not to ignore Latinos, Asians, and others--suppose the world was divided into only two races: “blacks” and “whites.” (These two terms are chosen because they are one-syllable words that encompass large people groups.)

2.) Now take almost any hymnal and substitute the words "whites" or "blacks" everywhere the words "man" or "men" are found.

In twenty-first century America, it is unthinkable that any hymn text would include phrases such as:

● “Tho’ the eye of sinful blacks Thy glory may not see.” (“Holy, Holy, Holy”)

● “God with whites is now residing.” (“Angels, from the Realms of Glory”)

● “And peace to blacks on earth.” ("O Little Town of Bethlehem")

● “I know that he is living, whatever whites may say.” (“He Lives”)

● "God's great love to blacks Thou art." (“Great Redeemer, We Adore Thee”)

Most people (I hope!) would be uncomfortable with singing hymn texts like those above. And I suspect that any hymnal publisher would either adjust the language to make the text more inclusive or delete the stanza or hymn entirely from consideration for publishing. No publisher would say: "It's too inconvenient." "Changes will mess up the rhyme scheme." "It's okay; nobody will pay attention to it, because the rest of the text is meaningful."

Hopefully the above exercise illustrates how not being intentionally inclusive is by default exclusive. If someone made an effort to count how many times male-biased language and imagery are used in songs and scripture translations there might be more empathy for so many women who feel linguistically invisible in churches. Certainly these women don't feel intentionally included.

Some women may not feel this way (yet), but I suspect that church leaders’ overwhelming use of gender-exclusive language causes an increasing number of women to stumble. The gospel message of inclusion simply cannot be delivered adequately in the vehicle of gender-exclusive language. Our churches' mandate is to lead the way in correcting this situation.

Language Matters in 21st Century Evangelism

Through the years, Rick Warren has consistently provided food for thought on the subject of evangelism. Agree with him or disagree [which I often do, especially when he links evangelism exclusively with his preferred worship style], his words are difficult to ignore. Sometimes, however, I wonder if he really listens to himself*:

· “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all‘ approach to fishing, and the same is true in fishing for men.”

· “The goal is . . . to make it as easy as possible for the unchurched to hear about Christ.”

· “We will do whatever it takes to reach more people for Christ.”

· “What matters is that your style matches the people you are seeking to reach.”

With his constant rhetoric about 21st century evangelism techniques, one would think that using gender-inclusive language in everyday speech, song, and biblical translations would be near the top of Warren’s list of ways to attract women to the gospel.

But that’s not the case. At minimum, he obviously doesn’t think gender-inclusive language is important. More likely, he rejects the notion outright. It’s just too much trouble--and highly unnecessary--to adjust the gender-exclusive verbiage commonly found in church circles.

Warren definitely is not alone in his perspective. Throughout history, women have been forced to adjust to “one-size-fits-all” patriarchal language that helps keep women linguistically invisible. Centuries of patriarchal grammar rules have required people to interpret whether words like “man,” “men,” “he,” “him,” and "his” refer only to males or to everyone.

These long-accepted rules allow using masculine pronouns to refer to either a male or a female. But the rules never allow female pronouns in reference to males. “Man" or "he" or "him" can refer to "one man" or to "everyone". "Woman" or "she" or "her" can never refer to males.

Dwight Moody, now Executive Director of The Academy of Preachers, writes in a 2002 EthicsDaily.com article, “The Bible is a Man’s Book“:

“As it is, men controlled the translation, interpretation and proclamation of the biblical message. Only within the last generation have such positions of scholarship and authority been open to women. This heightened awareness of gender is part of a broader cultural shift, of course. Many are now asking: How can a book ‘of the men’ and ‘by the men’ be anything other than ‘for the men’?”

“There is a double standard here built into the prevailing paradigm of masculinity, which allows both men and women to hear male language as neutral and female language as gender-biased.”

Constant, unexamined use of such outdated grammar rules is ultimately inexcusable for modern Christians trying to convey clearly the gospel to today’s world.

Ignoring for a moment that human biblical writers were already influenced by ancient patriarchal, hierarchical society, translations such as the NRSV, CEV, TNIV, et al, are at least intentional about clarifying gender meaning as they translate the so-called “inerrant” Hebrew and Greek source materials into easy-to-understand language. When the source text obviously has a plural meaning, for clarity these translations use words like “people,” “everyone,” or other plural synonyms rather than “man,” “men,” etc.

Yet there is great resistance to inclusive translations. And those who ask why are quickly dismissed as “feminists.” Warren’s own words identify the real problem:

· “The problem with many churches today is that they’re stuck in the culture of the 1950’s—using bait and hooks that worked in that era—and they’re wondering why the fish are no longer biting.”

· “The kind of fish you want to catch will determine every part of your strategy.”

· “Unfortunately, many churches don’t take the time to understand the people they want to reach.”

· “Many churches offer only two choices: Take it or leave it.”

With the SBC's (and others’) continuous, patriarchal pronouncements about women plus the great resistance to inclusive translations and gender-inclusive speech/song modifications, it is no wonder that many women--churched and unchurched--remain uncertain whether or not the whole gospel is truly for them.

* Bulleted quotes are by Rick Warren, from an article by Jon Walker, Western Recorder, May 2001, “Rick Warren Offers Evangelism ‘Fishing Lessons."

Intentional Inclusion: Race & Gender

Recently, at the KBF (Kentucky Baptist Fellowship) Spring Gathering, Robert Parham’s new, award-winning documentary, “Beneath the Skin: Baptists and Racism,“ was shown to participants. While viewing the presentation I felt a sense of despair that despite decades of excruciating effort to rid our society of this blot, racism still plagues us. Like kudzu, we can’t seem to get rid of it, no matter how diligently we prune. Just when we think we’ve dealt with the issue effectively in some areas, killing it off for good, it keeps reappearing in unexpected places, even in our churches. We’ve made progress, of course, but our society still has a long way to go.

One of the areas in which we have made some progress is with racist language. Today’s American society has largely been sensitized to the ill-effects from using racist language when referring to people groups, especially African-Americans. In the last decade or so, America has had growing challenges with use of racist terminology for Hispanics, Muslims, and others, but we’ve been dealing with racist terminology for African-Americans much longer.

Slavery in America has been illegal since the Civil War, but racist language was publicly, openly heard until the late twentieth century, and still persists in too many circles. People of color long ago recognized that they would never achieve equal status with Caucasians as long as common, derogatory terminology about their race remained unchallenged. In the aftermath of the Martin Luther King, Jr. era, anyone using racist language today risks becoming a target of scorn and possible legal action.

The problem with racist language is bigger than derogatory terminology, however. It’s just as devastating to be "invisible": ignored, unseen, not thought of.

Former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, honoring the memory of her childhood friend, Denise McNair, and three other girls killed in the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, AL said in a speech a few years ago, “America finally came to terms with its birth defect, finally came to terms with the contradiction . . . that when the Founding Fathers said, ‘We the people,’ they didn’t mean any of us.” (RNS)

Racist language and sexist language garner the same basic effect: exclusion. The exclusion may or may not be intentional, but the effect is still the same. As with racist language, despite decades of slow progress, gender-exclusive language is still with us, even in churches.

Midway through the 2008 American presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama, in a Democratic primary campaign speech, quoted Abraham Lincoln, proclaiming, “All men are created equal.” I was surprised that Hillary Clinton, his female opponent at the time, didn’t take Obama’s unexamined use of this 19th century quote as a reason for rebuttal on the grounds that in the 21st century the quote is perceived as sexist. [Perhaps she either didn’t notice or didn’t want to risk being labeled as “unpatriotic” for questioning the words of Lincoln, a revered American icon.]

The truth is, Lincoln’s words were exactly what he meant. He was trying to bring the races together, not the sexes. Likely he wasn’t deliberately excluding women; he just hadn’t thought to include them. Women were invisible to him in both grammar and thought when it came to important issues.

That’s the problem with gender-exclusive language in a nutshell. Language shapes thought. Thought precedes action. And our grammar rules and practices keep women linguistically invisible. Our moderate churches say they are including women, but unless church leaders are intentional about including them through deliberate, consistent use of gender-inclusive language, women will remain second-class members in most churches.

It’s not a matter of intentionally excluding women. It’s a matter of intentionally including them. It’s a matter of recognizing that the overwhelming majority of them are already one-down in society and must constantly be intentionally included in order to have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. Otherwise, by default, they will remain invisible and overlooked for church leadership positions and other opportunities traditionally offered to males.

Jesus didn’t just preach equality. He practiced a life of intentional inclusiveness, giving us a perfect example of how to treat each other with love. Jesus reached out a welcoming hand to the woman with the issue of blood, to the Samaritan woman, to the lepers and tax collectors, to the children whom his disciples dismissed, to others whom society marginalized. We can do no less than follow his loving example.

My First Blog--Ever
This is my first blog--ever. I've been reluctant to start blogging, knowing my words might draw fire.

I'm uncomfortable with being a target; my life is complicated enough as it is. I don't like being the center of controversy. I especially don't like risking stereotypical, derogatory labels conveniently applied by passionate people who disagree with my stance on hot-button issues.

As a woman minister I like being perceived as talented, competent, spiritually mature, friendly, cooperative, approachable, trustworthy, compassionate, easy-going, lighthearted,...the list goes on. Words like feminist, control-freak, rigid, controversial, man-hater, troublemaker, hard-driving, and other far-less-polite terms are labels I'd like to avoid.

For the past few years I've regularly written columns--mostly about worship and church music ministry--for Connections, our church newsletter (articles accessed under "staff" at www.ibcfrankfort.com). My goal for those columns has been to be informative, inspirational, and pastoral. Those columns are tailored specifically for our current congregation as I've gently steering through controversial waters about worship practices and music ministry issues one-at-a-time, trying to build community and morale within our very diverse—and decidedly opinionated—congregation.

For my Connections columns there has been no urgent need to address issues about women or women in ministry, because this congregation came to the conclusion decades ago that gender was not to be a barrier to full inclusion in the life of the church. For fifteen years now I've thrived while serving God and this church as Music/Worship Pastor. I've seen several senior pastors and staff members come and go. Currently--except for our Senior Pastor--our entire pastoral staff team just happens to be all female.

In such an oasis of acceptance (including issues other than gender), it's sometimes easy to forget that ours is a highly unusual church, especially among Baptist churches, both conservative and moderate. But step outside our doors and BAM! It frequently smacks you in the face!

Some of us—pastoral staff and a few savvy church members—are aware of the bias that's so prevalent in churches elsewhere. But when average members of our church return from a worship service or wedding at another Baptist church, they incredulously report what they heard and/or saw take place in regards to women. And first-time visitors to our church often comment (for good or bad) that they are astounded by what they see and hear--especially if it's a communion service, since nearly half our current deacon body is female.

For about thirty-five years SBC and CBF churches have graciously employed me full-time (part-time while I was in seminary) as their Minister of Music—against all odds, when you consider the prevailing climate against women ministers through the years.

However, full-time—or even part-time--employment by Baptist churches has often been denied to my "sisters in ministry." So many have felt the pain of open rejection or at best only partial, limited acceptance in churches. All of this thwarts God's calling upon their lives to full-time ministry in the local church. Since the early 80's I've felt that it was a part of my ministerial calling to be an advocate for women, especially those called to professional ministry.

So, I've started this blog. I'm blogging for a broader audience than my current church family, although I have no guarantee that anyone will be interested in what I have to say. Articles posted on this blog sight will be "edgier" than my Connections columns.

Most of my posts will deal with women's equality, women in ministry, and especially gender-inclusive language issues. I've had articles published through the years about women in ministry and gender-inclusion issues, but I've never dealt publicly with language issues in the church and beyond. Even today all of these issues are alive and well in churches everywhere, especially in Baptist circles.

I'm expecting that most conservatives will resist everything I have to say; even many moderates will resist my attempts to clean up the sexist language that still prevails in churches, just because it's "inconvenient," or they feel like I'm "shoving the issue down their throats."

In recent years I've come to believe that gender-inclusive language is foundational for women (outside and inside the church) to experience full acceptance in church and society. Total elimination of sexist language will undoubtedly never happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't preclude my efforts to raise awareness of and sensitivity to this important issue.

Language gives shape to our thought. Thought precedes action. The gospel message of inclusion can never adequately be delivered in the vehicle of non-inclusive language. We must be intentional about raising awareness of and facilitating change in the language of the church.

This is why I'm blogging. This is why I'm risking controversy. Join me on my journey....