Diocese’s call for ‘expansive language for God’ sparks debate on gender-neutral Episcopal liturgies

By David Paulsen
Posted Feb 7, 2018
Washington convention

The Diocese of Washington holds its 123rd diocesan convention Jan. 27 at Washington National Cathedral. Photo: Diocese of Washington, via Facebook

[Episcopal News Service] The Diocese of Washington is calling on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention to consider expanding the use of gender-neutral language for God in the Book of Common Prayer, if and when the prayer book is slated for a revision.

He? She? Those pronouns aren’t preferred, the diocese says in a resolution it passed Jan. 27 at its convention, held at Washington National Cathedral in the nation’s capital city. Instead, the resolution recommends using “expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition.”

The diocese’s convention passed two other resolutions, voicing support for immigrants and the transgender community. But it was the call for more inclusive language in the prayer book that drew national attention, especially from conservative-leaning critics.

“What I see is a church that embraces literally any fashionable left-wing cause,” Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News, said in a segment Feb. 5 in which he interviewed the Rev. Alex Dyer, one of the resolution’s sponsors.

The Daily Caller, a news website founded by Carlson, reported on the resolution last week, as did Breitbart and The Blaze. Some of the reaction has been “vitriolic,” Washington Bishop Mariann Budde told Episcopal News Service in describing three negative emails she has received. All three emails were written in a similar tone, she said, describing her diocese alternately as aligned with Satan and at war with God.

“It’s clear they didn’t read the resolution,” Budde said.

The resolution’s push for more gender-inclusive language grew out of conversations in congregations around the diocese where topics of gender and transgender equality have resonated among the parishioners, Budde said. She sees it as a spiritual matter, not a cultural or political issue.

That view was shared by Dyer, priest-in-charge at St. Thomas’ Parish in Washington, D.C. He responded in the TV interview that the diocese had based its decision on prayer and discernment, not politics – and a belief in “a Jesus who calls us to reach out to people on the margins and to reach out to everyone.”

The resolution is worded to influence future revisions of the prayer book, understanding God as a higher being who transcends gender. It doesn’t mandate the elimination of gender-specific references to God, Budde said, despite what some reports suggest.

“I don’t believe that the way we understand gender is applicable when we imagine who created Heaven and Earth,” Budde said. At the same time, the diocese’s emphasis is on expanding the church’s liturgies rather than eliminating masculine descriptions of God, such as God the father.

“I’m all for expanding our understanding of God and how we pray to God, but I feel no need to take anything away,” she said.

The difficulty in describing God may reside in language itself.

“No language can adequately contain the complexity of the divine, and yet it is all we have to try to explain God,” the diocese said in an explanation of the resolution contained in the convention materials. “By expanding our language for God, we will expand our image of God and the nature of God.”

The Episcopal Church is not the only Christian denomination grappling with the inadequacy of language to explain God. The Roman Catholic Church’s Catechism, for example, discusses references to God as “Father” while also noting that the image of motherhood is also appropriate.

“We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God,” the Catechism says.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America addresses the question of gendered language in a 2013 liturgical resource: “Because language is created and used by humans, it reflects the imperfections and limitations of humanness. Therefore, no use of language can ever totally describe or represent God.”

Under “Language Describing God,” the document cites some examples – “eagle,” “rock,” “light,” among others – before offering a caution about pronoun use: “Assigning male pronouns to human occupations (such as judge, teacher, potter, guard) or to objects (fortress, rock, shield) should be avoided when they are used as metaphors for God.”

More recently, the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden announced last year that it would update its liturgical handbook with “more inclusive” gender language. That move sparked some complaints that the church was eliminating masculine references to God, a reaction similar to what the Diocese of Washington now faces.

“We are not going to give up our tradition,” Church of Sweden Archbishop Antje Jackelén told “PBS NewsHour.” “God is beyond our human categories of gender. … We need help to remind us of that, because due to the restrictions of our brains, we tend to think of God in very human categories. We are not worshiping political correctness. We are worshiping God, the creator of the universe.”

The Episcopal Church, too, has a history of emphasizing inclusiveness.

“This is a conversation that we have been having internally in the Episcopal Church for decades,” the Rev. Emily Wachner, a lecturer in practical theology at General Theological Seminary in New York, told ENS.

Examples of the church’s evolution on gender and power dynamics include the approval of ordination of women in 1976, but it didn’t start or end there, Wachner said. She noted the creation of “Voices Found,” a 2003 supplement to the Hymnal 1982 that featured all women composers.

The Diocese of Washington is following directly in the footsteps of the Diocese of Connecticut, which approved its own resolution on gendered language last year. That resolution called on the General Convention’s Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music “to amend, as far as is practicable, all gendered references to God” in the Book of Common Prayer, “replacing them with gender expansive language.”

“I’ve never had a parishioner leave or join the church for concern about gendered language for God,” Wachner said. “At the same time, this entire conversion around God and gender is so important.” In some ways it parallels the secular conversations now underway on gender issues in society, such as sexual harassment and the #MeToo movement, she said.

Of all the work the church could be doing for gender equity – Wachner mentioned disparity in clergy pay as one example – re-examining descriptions of God in Episcopal liturgies may be just one small step. Wachner is particularly supportive of the first half of the Diocese of Washington resolution, calling for “expansive language.”

She was less impressed by the second half of the resolution, which called on prayer book revisions that, “when possible,” would “avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God.” Limiting language seems counter to the intent of the resolution, she said.

“I believe the real conversation we should be having is around the vitality of the church itself,” Wachner said. “I’m not sure God’s pronouns are a vital part of that conversation.”

The Diocese of Washington also has received attention for its resolution on immigration, which committed it to “becoming a sanctuary diocese” and “offering sacred welcome to immigrants.” Certain congregations in the diocese already have offered sanctuary to immigrants facing deportation, Budde said, and this was a chance for the diocese to show its support for those efforts.

The same was true of the third resolution, “on inclusion of transgendered people.” Budde said the diocese wanted to stand with congregations that have been at the forefront of welcoming transgender people and fighting violence and hatred against them.

The resolution regarding gendered language for God was approved by a hand vote, with a solid majority in favor, though it was not unanimous, Budde said.

“There was very little debate in the convention itself, and I don’t think it’s because they didn’t want to have the conversation,” she said. If Episcopalians didn’t feel comfortable debating the question on the convention floor, she would welcome such conversations in other settings.

She also underscored the imperfection of language and the ways that our understanding of language can change over time. “Mankind” once was an accepted catchall term for men and women. “There wasn’t really much debate about that, until there was a lot of debate about that,” she said, and now it is more common to hear inclusive terms like “humankind.”

Her hope is that someday the church will be so confident in welcoming all people that such debates will no longer be necessary. Episcopalians may each see the world differently, she said, but they share a spiritual common ground, “that we’re part of a family trying to be true to the Gospel imperative to love your neighbor.”

– David Paulsen is an editor and reporter for the Episcopal News Service. He can be reached at dpaulsen@episcopalchurch.org.


Tags


Comments (58)

  1. Randy Marks says:

    Neal,
    Although I wouldn’t use the word “tampering,” that is a fair question to which I have no logical answer. The best I can do: Two decades ago, my church’s (St Mark’s Episcopal, Capitol Hill, Washington DC) worship committee discussed this issue. Our church has a strong bias in favor of inclusion so the issue was not whether to be gender neutral, but when. Our consensus was to consider whether the changing to gender neutral language was akin to changing a work of art. (So that meant not changing hymns.) And, though I don’t remember whether we discussed the Lord’s Prayer at the time, I have always considered it to be a work of art and thus am comfortable with “Our Father.”
    Thanks for “listening,” Randy

  2. Doug Desper says:

    The present liberal revisionism of the “faith once delivered” feels free to alter the plainest of words uttered by Christ to instead become their personal custom fit. It is a sort of hutzpah that doesn’t recognize that the Lord himself chose specific language about God and prayer to that God while he lived elbow-to-elbow among the “walking wounded” of his day. He knew so well the hang-ups, sins, wrongs, rebellions, problems, and emotional scars borne by his neighbors, yet he clarified the relationship with God using the specific language of God as “Father”. Not enough study has gone into this use. That’s the hutzpah. Jesus moved the needle in his time from the obscure and distant, non-specific God, “up there” to a specific identity using familial language. The needle moved from obscure to endearing when Jesus identified God as “Father”: a grantor of a name, the guarantor of an inheritance, and the one who is strong, yet approachable in a household. What a powerful image of who God is! The middle eastern custom for men of substance was that they should walk slowly and dignified among their neighbors…but in Jesus’ weaving of the tale of the Prodigal Son our heavenly Father runs towards the errant child to have him…and us! That word “Father” personalizes God as one who goes so far as to become undignified for the likes of us. So, why are we heading back to the obscure and non-specific imagery through resolutions? Is it that no one until this generation has ever been hurt? No, people were hurt, abused, and dying the streets in Jesus’ day too. Maybe that’s why He taught about a relational God. God is like the good Father who brings a household together.

    In our time of constantly shifting curiosities, broken families, fatherless children, and with a list of gender identities ever-increasing past “LGBTQQIAAP+”…etc, etc, etc….the role of “Father” is foreign. That, friends is the problem….OUR very problem. I don’t want a god who is ethereal, “up there” and distantly non-specific. I want “Abba, Father” who became less on the account of a broken creation. Someone said that they didn’t pray the Lord’s Prayer because of the language that Jesus used. Another relied on a bit of Jewish tradition to argue to go back to a non-specific god who anyone can relate to. Here’s some more Jewish thought from the Talmud: “We often see thing not as they are, but as we want them to be.”

  3. mike geibel says:

    Dear Mr. Campbell:
    In response to your query: “Why should the Lord’s Prayer be exempt from tampering?”

    Why shouldn’t we also tamper with the Declaration of Independence which reads:

    “We declare the these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

  4. Mike–I fear we each have failed to understand each others’ question. In replying to Randy Marks above (who said that at his church with progressive leanings they did alter the various parts of the service WITH THE EXCEPTION of the Lord’s Prayer): so my question to him was what in their experience made the Lord’s Prayer exempt from alteration? I’ve seen this in many places: so-called modern contemporary language for everything in the service EXCEPT for the Lord’s Prayer. My thesis is that whatever it is that makes the Lord’s Prayer acceptable as is, is probably a good enough reason to keep the rest of the service texts as is. And I agree, I wouldn’t tamper with the Declaration of Independence. My preference is for so-called traditional language. Having said that, I’ve conformed rather happily to the discipline of Rite II which has clearly been the preference of the church as a whole, to this point in time at least.

  5. mike geibel says:

    We are not in disagreement. However, this article and the ENS article posted today are designed to pave the way for what the Leadership absolutely intends to do, and no amount of disagreement or objections from parishioners will deter them. “Tampering” with the BCP and Hymns to be consistent with the Church’s political, social justice, eco-justice and gender justice agenda is deemed a mandatory calling by the leadership and thus is a foregone conclusion.

  6. Randy Marks says:

    Doug,

    You say that “The present liberal revisionism of the ‘faith once delivered’ feels free to alter the plainest of words uttered by Christ to instead become their personal custom fit.”
    Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not English, so every English language Bible has “alter[ed] he plainest of words uttered by Christ.” (Of course, in addition, since no man alive was with Christ, we can’t be sure exactly what Jesus said.)

    Thanks for “listening,”
    Randy

  7. Gerard Beritela says:

    I don’t think this necessarily means referring to God as “it.” I’m proud to say that for at least the last 15 years I have never used any pronouns for God in my sermons and I also have not had to use those horridly awkward constructions such as “GodsSelf.” or use the word “God” over and over to the point of nausea. It can fairly easily be done if you work at it and have some imagination. I’ve never had anyone comment on my sermons regarding this, because it is done so smoothly that they don’t even notice.

Comments are closed.