What About Inclusive Language?

Occasionally someone asks me what I think of the "inclusive language" debate. Usually they're talking about either referring to God with gender-specific pronouns or translating the Bible in an allegedly "inclusive" or "exclusive" way. Here are my thoughts:

When it comes to Scripture, I support translating passages into English that maintains the integrity of the passages in the original languages, yet can be understood by modern readers with as little explanation as possible. Bible language experts know much more about this than I do (or for that matter, more than most of the people reading this), so they generally have a good idea about what each passage meant to the original readers of Scripture. I think the guiding principle should be that if a passage was referring to men and women in the Greek or Hebrew, it should be translated in an inclusive way (e.g. people as opposed to men). This is how the NRSV, TNIV, NLT, NCV and GW usually translate passages. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, the old NIV and old RSV usually do not translate passages this way. The ESV mostly doesn't either, but is surprisingly inclusive in a few passages and in some of its footnotes. Languages aren't codes, and English has changed in the past few decades. As Ben Witherington once said, and I'm paraphrasing here, just because a translation was good enough for Grandma doesn't mean it's good enough for us.

There is a movement in some corners of the mainline (and that's about the only place, because Catholics and evangelicals don't seem to have these sorts of hang-ups) to remove all gender references to God. The idea is that God transcends human ideas of gender and that calling God "Father" or referring to him as "he" ignores his feminine qualities. Since scripture says that men and women are made in the image of God, critics argue that using masculine language is inaccurate. Some people claim that referring to God as "Father" may cause problems for people who had a bad relationship (or no relationship) with their earthly father. There are three main reasons that I reject these arguments in favor of using traditional masculine language: (1) Jesus called God "Father". He called him that in the model prayer. He seemed to have no problems doing so. There were likely people then who had bad relationships with their dads, and I'm sure Jesus knew that. God had a nurturing side then, and I'm sure Jesus knew that. Jesus obviously had no problem rocking the boat if he thought it was important for him to do so. But this wasn't an issue for him. It shouldn't be for us either. (2) With an epidemic of fatherlessness in society, people need to know God as father more than ever. Scripture calls him "father to the fatherless". I've worked for years with at-risk youth, mostly male, most who do not have fathers in the home or have had bad relationships with their dads. I have never seen a case where these guys had a difficult time relating to God in a paternal way. Not one case. Ever. So I don't buy this one at all. (3) English isn't set up to handle making God "gender-neutral". Either we have to avoid pronouns altogether, which requires writing and speaking like morons, or we have to alternate back and forth from he to she, or father to mother, making God into some gender schizophrenic just to accomodate our language preferences. That may work if you're preaching to theology eggheads but not in the real world. The dozen or so people in the world outside of theological institutions who have problems with traditional masculine language for God would make better use of their time by finding another drum to beat.

Comments

[UMJeremy]

Shane, there's nothing in this post about women's perceptions of using masculine language for God. Even the youth you reference are mostly male. Woman are 50% of the children of God, and it's a voice that should be included if you want a serious discussion.

I feel that exclusively masculine language or imagery for God is childish. Calm down...I don't mean immature or unthinking, but that it's the language we have all grown up with. We are comfortable with it. I'm not pointing fingers or being elitist because...it's not our fault. We had no choice: we had to think of God in masculine terms because thats what our parents and SS teachers did.

I don't want to force (key word IS force) my children or my parishioner's children to have to think God is a He, and that is why my church's worship services use inclusive language and a broad stroke of images of God: male, female, and neutral. I do a theological disservice to my parish if I continue to embrace a masculine God.

1Cor13 reminds us that there are "thoughts like a child" that bear consideration when we are "adults." Realizing our need for more compassionate, accurate God-language means letting go of the simple, comforting formulas of our childhood and reflecting on them. Shane, I'm glad you have chosen to reflect on your embrace of masculine language, even if we end up with different conclusions. Having this conversation moves us from comfort into conflict where the Holy Spirit can nudge us in what is the right direction for each of us.

[lindsey]

To umjeremy,

We don't say God "the Father" just because our parents and Sunday School teachers said that; we say that because God has been thought of that way for the last 2,000 years of Christian tradition. I get very concerned when I hear modern Christians try to change the content of the Bible in order to suit their current, supposedly enlightened views, rather than change their current views to fit the content of the Bible. I have absolutely no problem with using masculine language to talk about God. I even find it comforting to know that my heavenly Father will never disappoint me even though my earthly father does.

I agree that discussion within the Christian body on various topics can be beneficial, but there are just some fundamentals that should not be toyed with.

[UMJeremy]

Lindsey, I completely agree that there are some fundamentals that should not be toyed with. But we must be careful that what we consider a "fundamental" doesn't conflict with a bigger fundamental that God seems to be pretty clear about.

First and foremost, God is infinite, right? Bigger than any restrictions or reductions that we place on God...right? The first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

God is infinite, beyond gender, beyond anything we can capture with only one word or image - much greater than our minds can comprehend. And yet we wrap God up in a box labeled "Father."

When Trelawney, one of my seminary friends, was converting a church to inclusive language, she taught that *our language* should reflect our belief in an infinite God, rather than promoting the false idea that God is just one gender ("Father") and thus NOT infinite or beyond gender.

There's a very real danger here. If we become so tied to one image of God (such as "Father") and let it exclude all others, and we don't sing the songs that refer to God as female...I fear that becomes idolatry. As my friend Trelawney wrote "we substitute that one word/image for God, worshipping that tiny idol rather than the huge, infinite God."

I fear that we have done that with "God the Father" and justify it with tradition and bible...both of which were written by men.

[Blake Huggins]

A very important -- and often neglected -- aspect of this conversation is the presence of feminine images and metaphors of God within the biblical text. (http://tinyurl.com/8em5e9)

And of course it's always helpful to remember that any single image or metaphor ultimately falls short of adequately describing the unknown and infinite that is God simply because it restricts and reduces God to the finite constructs of language and (be it English, Greek, Hebrew, or whatever) and the socially conditioned categories of gender. To quote Wittgenstein, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." The same could be said of our linguistic projections of God.

I think it is worth reflecting upon that the original Hebrew name for God was unpronounceable, indeed, unmentionable and unspeakable -- because God is that which is beyond language and metaphor and gender. A genius move on the part of the Rabbis.

Corporately, I think inclusivity is the best approach because assuming that everyone identifies with God in the same way and with the same images and metaphors is very risky and, I would argue, un-pastoral.

Individually, I am not going to deny the fatherless at-risk teenager who has never seen his biological father and who as only observed pathetic fatherly examples the opportunity to identify with God as a father anymore than I will demand that the abused woman who has been dominated by every male figure in her life assume that same metaphorical posture. That would be grossly irresponsible.

Individual metaphors by themselves are wholly inadequate and any attempt to use one exclusively to the neglect of any others marks a dangerous reductionism in our theological language -- and an attempt colonize the name of God.

[Craig L. Adams]

Blake sez: "I think it is worth reflecting upon that the original Hebrew name for God was unpronounceable, indeed, unmentionable and unspeakable -- because God is that which is beyond language and metaphor and gender. A genius move on the part of the Rabbis."

--

Actually not so. The fact that we do not know how to pronounce it doesn't mean the Hebrews who originally wrote, recited and sang the material in the Hebrew Bible didn't know how to speak it. It appears frequently, and in several forms: like the "ya" in "Halleluiah" and so forth.

It is evident from the comments of both Jeremy and Blake that they are advocating a step away from God-as-known-through-Jesus-Christ to a more abstract and unknowable God of philosophy. If God is known to us in a personal way (an essential aspect of the Christian revelation) then pronouns are inevitable — and necessary.

At the Church I currently serve we sing:

"...with God our Creator,
children all are we...."

Yet, the second phrase does not follow from the first. The imagery is wrong. Surely it should be: "creatures all are we" or maybe "robots all are we."

But, children have parents. And, "Creator" can never stand in for "Abba." (BTW, I don't object to speaking of God as "mother" — it's just not traditional & some people may dislike it because of negative experiences with their own mother. So, it needs to be explained and justified — which it can be — before it is used.)

As we move toward impersonal language for God we move away from a God who knows and loves us — and away from the distinctive way Jesus spoke of God. We move away, also from the relationship to God into which Christ invites us.

So, it not only divorces us from the sources of our faith, but also it's content.

[Blake Huggins]

Craig,

You have missed my point.

I'm well aware that the name of God appears in the Hebrew text in various forms -- even feminine ones (!) -- I was simply pointing out that the oldest one that we know of was unpronounceable and beyond language. This is also evident in Yahweh's response to Moses at the burning bush.

I never said that I wanted to move away from "knowing God revealed through Jesus." I don't think Jeremy did either.

In fact, I never said I wanted to move away from personal language at all. Just that we quit demanding everyone to use the same type of personal language.

A personal God is, well, personal. Globalizing our particular ways of connecting to God personally denies others the opportunity to connect in their way.

I'm not suggesting we move to an impersonal view of God anymore than I'm suggest that we all connect to God in the exact same way with the same images. I'm suggesting that there is truth in both the personal and the impersonal and when we find outlets for both we are catching a fuller glimpse of God.

[Kevin Hall]

I would like to take issue with the passing over of people's refusal to call God father based on their earthly relationship with their father figure.

While earning my undergraduate degree, I worked at several United Methodist churches as a director of youth ministries. I had noticed that one of my youth always cried after reciting the lord's prayer. Due to my own ignorance, I passed this off as her piousness and connection to God. One day, however, she pulled me aside.

She confided in me that her earthly father had turned her life into a living hell by molesting her. (This man has since been arrest for murder, and has life without parole. We did discuss her going to the authorities, but she did not think it would be needed--due to the murder conviction.) She told me that the only thing she could think of when she said the lord's prayer was, well, I do not need to get as graphic as she got. With tears in her eyes, she asked me how important it was to conceptualize God as father. She said that if god was limited to being father, she would rather burn in hell, because she knows what those kinds of fathers are like. I told her that God has many names, and gave her some examples from Scripture.

What was I to tell her? She needs to get over that horrific event in her life? Suck it up, and call God father? I think those of us lucky enough to not have such a hellacious relationship with their father are commanded to be a little bit more sensitive.

[Shane Raynor]

Kevin,

There are always going to be cases that we have to handle with extra sensitivity. My dad was an alcoholic, and when I was a teenager I saw wine in my pastor's fridge and it almost crushed me. But in the end, I learned that the world was bigger than my bad experience and that everyone who drinks alcohol is not an alcoholic. I had a friend in college who was molested by her dentist when she was a child. She didn't stop going to dentists because of that. Sure it was probably a painful experience for her to go to any kind of doctor for a while, but she did it, and I argue that it was a healthy thing for her in the long run. She learned that doctors and dentists are good, even though her experience wasn't. With the teenager you mentioned, based solely on what you shared, I think it would have been better to use that as an opportunity to explain to her that a bad father doesn't make fatherhood bad. I think by trying to protect her, it's possible you may have allowed her wounds to fester rather than clean them and help them heal. I know I'll probably get blasted for saying that, but it's a tough truth I have realized through years of ministry work... sheltering people usually does more harm than good in the long run.

[Craig L. Adams]

Another Blake H. quote: "I'm well aware that the name of God appears in the Hebrew text in various forms -- even feminine ones (!) -- I was simply pointing out that the oldest one that we know of was unpronounceable and beyond language. This is also evident in Yahweh's response to Moses at the burning bush."

--

I was intending to speak of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]. Were you talking about something else? The Tetragrammaton was not originally "unpronounceable" or "unmentionable" or "unspeakable." Where did you get this idea? (I'd really like to know.)

The OT writers sometimes use the notion of "the Name" of God to suggest (IMO) that God is beyond our full comprehension — "the Name" being *what we know of God* or maybe *God as known by Israel.* (I probably shouldn't throw you a bone, but I think an argument that the Israelites recognized *at an early stage* that God was beyond their comprehension, could be constructed along these lines.)

Concerning [YHWH], I found the following comment (among others) in the /Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament/ edited by Ernst Jenni with assistance from Claus Westermann (© 1997 by Hendrickson Publishers):

"In post-exilic Judaism, the divine name /yhwh/ receded even more for various reasons and in varying degrees in different circles, until it totally disappeared in early Judaism or was replaced by ’ᵃdōnāy and kyrios. The name’s original function of elevating its bearer from the presupposed world of polytheistic powers (cf. e.g., Mic 4:5, 'For all peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we, we walk in the name of Yahweh, our God, always and forever') became obsolete with the development of monotheistic faith. But the name’s associated function of describing the personal otherness of the God who interacts with people (e.g., John 17:6, “I have revealed your name to people”; cf. v 26) did not become obsolete; rather, it was manifest by other linguistic means in Judaism and in early Christianity."

The Divine Name *was* spoken in ancient OT times. (BTW, Jenni says: "The etymology of the name Yahweh widely held today thus approaches the interpretation of Exod 3:14 rather closely....") It appears frequently in the OT in several different forms. It was written, spoken and sung. It became no longer spoken somewhere in the late post-exilic period, the so-called Intertestamental period. It had to be that late because YHWH appears in the writings of the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Many of us believe that Jesus' use of Abba for God was shockingly personal. And, he invites his followers into a relationship in which personal pronouns and images for God must be used — or it is a different relationship. And, as I said previously, feminine imagery is also appropriate and biblical — that fact is just not widely known.

[Blake Huggins]

Craig,

Thanks for following up. I'll try and address everything you have said in order.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're still missing my larger point here: that your personal name for God needn't be everyone's personal name for God. Restricting pronoun usage to a single gender (or just to pronouns in general) does just that.

But, if you insist we can go down the Tetragrammaton rabbit trail (yes, YHWH is what I am referring to).

I think this may come down to an issue of interpretation on both our parts, which is fine. You said, " The Tetragrammaton was not originally "unpronounceable" or "unmentionable" or "unspeakable." Where did you get this idea? (I'd really like to know.)" For the record, I never said that the divine was not vocally mentioned at all in ancient times or in the Hebrew text because, as you point out, it was, in various forms. But that is neither here nor there. I was simply pointing out that the Tetragrammaton -- one of the oldest written references to God in the Hebrew text -- in its written form, was typically un-vocalized (maybe that is better phrasing than what I have been using). It was that sacred. Your cited material, while helpful, does not deny that claim. I'm at home right now so without making a trip to the library this is what I can come up with in the way of scholarship.

Bernhard Anderson, in the abridged fourth edition of his "Understanding the Old Testament," notes that in addition to being virtually unpronounceable in its written form, the Tetragrammaton "was withdrawn from ordinary speech" because of its holy character (57). I can corroborate this with two different bible dictionaries (Oxford and Harper-Collins) both of which observe that YHWH, because of its sacred nature, was not vocally spoken even after the vowels were later added c. the third century BCE. Again, I'm not suggesting that God was never spoken of at all. That is not the case. I am simply referring to YHWH, which I originally meant to be illustrative of the reality that God will always be beyond language, image, and metaphor.

Now to the larger, and in my opinion more important, issue here. You also said, "Many of us believe that Jesus' use of Abba for God was shockingly personal." I am one of "us" here. I believe there is truth to both the claim that God is deeply personal and the claim that God is mystically impersonal. And I think when we make room for both we come a step closer to glimpsing, in part. who and what God really is. In my own private, personal prayer, I refer to God personally with -- you may not believe this -- masculine pronouns. However, because I believe that God is personal I cannot invalidate someone else's personal connection by demanding that they ascribed to the same name or pronoun that I do. That would probably make God very impersonal to that person.

So, I am not advocating a clean departure from the usage of personal pronouns. Just that pronouns be kept personal and not arbitrarily assigned to others who may or may not feel the connection. In my opinion that's what happens when one advocates exclusive use of one particular gender/pronoun. And, as others have pointed out here, I think that can be deeply damaging.

[Craig L. Adams]

I knew it was wrong to respond to you the second time. For some strange reason I did it anyway.

Talk to somebody you actually do trust or respect about Hebrew, Hebrew vowel points, the Tetragrammaton, etc. Or take a Hebrew class sometime. It's not a rabbit trail (well, the etymology is, of course, but that's neither here nor there).

Personal pronouns are inevitable because of the nature of the relationship to God into which Christ invites us. Male pronouns are inevitable because they predominate in the original source materials of the Christian faith. Preaching and teaching in such a way that we help to open people's minds to a breadth of appropriate imagery is a good thing.

"Mother" doesn't replace "Father" exactly, it suppliments it.

I think there may not be appropriate substitutes for the Trinitarian titles, because they refer back to the unique history of revelation in Jesus Christ.

But, where we can use a breadth of imagery, we should. In some contexts it may be necessary to do quite a bit of groundwork, so people know what we are doing and why.

[Blake Huggins]

Craig,

At this point I'll have to excuse myself from the conversation. It is clear that I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. We fundamentally disagree. And that's fine. I will celebrate that.

For the record, I have taken more than a few Hebrew classes. I don't have to talk to someone I trust because I been taught by more than one person who is more than knowledgeable in the field. I wouldn't have jumped into this had I not. Again, that was only meant to be illustrative of my main argument which I have stated three times now.

I do appreciate the dialogue and I wish you both the peace and the grace of God.

[UMJeremy]

(waves arms "over here over here!") So....to recap:

(1) Shane says to Kevin that we should force people to deal with masculine language for God, regardless of how much pain it causes them in the worship space. Is that a fair characterization?

(2) Craig says (in his last post) that since male language in worship is *inevitable* then it is *justified.* Is that a fair characterization? I have done three years of worship services, and male language is *not* inevitable nor necessary for worship.

(3) Finally, there's Craig's comments that renouncing Father language leads to impersonal worship. Obviously, the counterpoint is that Mother language for God is biblical and personal, and I know your recognize that, Craig. But that doesn't address the issue, in that you are claiming *only* familial language for God is personal, be it Father or Mother. Is that what you are claiming, that these two words MUST be in worship for it to be personal?

Just trying to find clarity here.

--------------
For fun, here's more imagery of God as a Mother:
a. a woman in labor (Isa. 42:14) whose forceful breath is an image of divine power.
b. a mother suckling her children (Num. 11:12)
c. a mother who does not forget the child she nurses (Isa. 49:14-15)
d. a mother who comforts her children (Isa. 66:12-13)
e. a mother who births and protects Israel (Isa. 46:3-4).
f. a mother who gave birth to the Israelites (Dt. 32:18)
g. a mother who calls, teaches, holds, heals and feeds her young (Hosea 11:1-4)
Other maternal references: Ps. 131:2; Job. 38:8, 29; Prov. 8:22-25; 1 Pet. 2:2-3, Acts 17:28.
- http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm

[Craig L. Adams]

Jeremy,

I consider your statements about the Motherhood of God to be non-controversial. Language for God should be broadened, and especially in a case like this where both Scripture and Tradition give us good basis for using that language.

I jumped in here because I read what I thought (and still think) were *false statements* about Biblical God-language. I'm certainly not all-knowing, and experience has shown (in fact) that I am wrong embarrassingly often. Still, to the best of my (admittedly incomplete) knowledge, Mr. H. made statements which can easily be demonstrated to be false. No one knows history for sure (since we weren't there), but the most likely explanation of the data we have is that the use of "Adonai" for God was a late development — probably for the reasons that Jenni suggests. I'm not aware of any evidence that has any historical merit that the frequently used Name of God (YHWH) was unpronounceable.

Only familial language is familial. The apostle Paul, of course, does use the language of "adoption" — and, I think that image may be especially important to people who were themselves adopted (or not, depending on the nature of the relationship). Still the "Abba" language is vitally important to Jesus and to the apostle Paul, and, I would think on this basis (I mean, for example its appearance Romans 8), to the earliest church.

The most intimate sort of language we can use for God is bound to be problematic — since sometimes our most intimate relationships have been (in reality) the stage for manipulation, abuse and control. This would be true with Motherhood language as well as Fatherhood language.

I think such language is inevitable because it both (a.) prominent in the sources of the faith (so if we are expecting people to respect, interact with and learn from the sources of the faith, it will be encountered) and (b) an essential aspect of the teaching of Jesus.

I seem to recall a passage in C. S. Lewis (I could never find it, I know) where Lewis talked about a friend who attempted to get past anthropomorphic images of God. He conceived of God as "perfect substance." At later point, he came to realize he had come to view God as a Gigantic Tapioca Pudding.

I want to worship the God who is known to us through Jesus Christ. We need the language of the Scriptures to learn from Christ, and we need the language of intimacy to enter into that same relationship. (And, yes, I think that justifies it's use, though not it's exclusive use.)

I don't want to end up worshiping the Gigantic Tapioca Pudding out of fear that personal God-language might offend someone.

Jeremy: clarity is an excellent goal, since I don't frankly see a *whole lot* of differences in our views in this — it's helpful, I think, to narrow down what the differences really are.

I've typed far too much on this already this morning, so I'm just not going to say anything right now about Trinitarian language — though I think this is an especially important issue. Maybe we can lock horns on that later.