Inclusive Language about God

[FireDragon76]

On many issues I would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the forum. However, on side I can identify with the conservative viewpoint is traditional language about God.

I go to an ELCA church but I've been noticing that alot of the worship materials go to great lengths to use gender inclusive language about God. It bothered me at first, but I believe in prudence and caution in my estimation of things, so I just tolerated it for a while. But lately it's been bothering me, because I've seen my own spiritual life degrade. I feel like the God being presented is more of an impersonal reality, like pantheism. I don't think the denomination's approach results from entirely well-thought out, conscious decisions to abandon belief in a personal God. I do think it rests alot on a desire to be inclusive, to the point that it challenges the particularity of the Christian belief in divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

This paper by the ELCA sums up their logic for using inclusive language: http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/How_is_language_used_in_worship.pdf

I really disagree that "Father" is just a metaphor for God. It is true that God is not a human being, but that doesn't mean all language about God is merely human. That would go against the doctrine of the Incarnation and the iconic nature of Jesus' personhood, that he reflects to us who the Father is. Jesus is not just somebody that shows us what God is like, he is God's own self-manifestation, including the language that he used about himself and his Father.

I find it particularly strange the ELCA defends the continued use of the Trinitarian baptismal formula on ecumenical grounds, yet in their own liturgy, you rarely hear this formula used outside of baptism. This goes against the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Deferring to ecumenical authority on such a crucial matter is also problematic from a Lutheran theological standpoint, since the Lutheran confessions are usually regarded as a sufficient statement of Lutheran faith.

It's something that has bothered me. The pastor and people at church are great people. But, the worship just doesn't do alot for me. I'm becoming more of a notional Christian and feel alienated from the worship.

 

[faroukfarouk]

On many issues I would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the forum. However, on side I can identify with the conservative viewpoint is traditional language about God.

I go to an ELCA church but I've been noticing that alot of the worship materials go to great lengths to use gender inclusive language about God. It bothered me at first, but I believe in prudence and caution in my estimation of things, so I just tolerated it for a while. But lately it's been bothering me, because I've seen my own spiritual life degrade. I feel like the God being presented is more of an impersonal reality, like pantheism. I don't think the denomination's approach results from entirely well-thought out, conscious decisions to abandon belief in a personal God. I do think it rests alot on a desire to be inclusive, to the point that it challenges the particularity of the Christian belief in divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

This paper by the ELCA sums up their logic for using inclusive language: http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/How_is_language_used_in_worship.pdf

I really disagree that "Father" is just a metaphor for God. It is true that God is not a human being, but that doesn't mean all language about God is merely human. That would go against the doctrine of the Incarnation and the iconic nature of Jesus' personhood, that he reflects to us who the Father is. Jesus is not just somebody that shows us what God is like, he is God's own self-manifestation, including the language that he used about himself and his Father.

I find it particularly strange the ELCA defends the continued use of the Trinitarian baptismal formula on ecumenical grounds, yet in their own liturgy, you rarely hear this formula used outside of baptism. This goes against the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Deferring to ecumenical authority on such a crucial matter is also problematic from a Lutheran theological standpoint, since the Lutheran confessions are usually regarded as a sufficient statement of Lutheran faith.

It's something that has bothered me. The pastor and people at church are great people. But, the worship just doesn't do alot for me. I'm becoming more of a notional Christian and feel alienated from the worship.

Your relationship to the Lutheran church is entirely your responsibility: I can't speak for your thoughts.

But any desire to get back to the language of Scripture - as opposed to new ideas that some ppl might like to read into Scripture - is positive.

 

[Philip_B]

On many issues I would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the forum. However, on side I can identify with the conservative viewpoint is traditional language about God.

I go to an ELCA church but I've been noticing that alot of the worship materials go to great lengths to use gender inclusive language about God. It bothered me at first, but I believe in prudence and caution in my estimation of things, so I just tolerated it for a while. But lately it's been bothering me, because I've seen my own spiritual life degrade. I feel like the God being presented is more of an impersonal reality, like pantheism. I don't think the denomination's approach results from entirely well-thought out, conscious decisions to abandon belief in a personal God. I do think it rests a lot on a desire to be inclusive, to the point that it challenges the particularity of the Christian belief in divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

This paper by the ELCA sums up their logic for using inclusive language: http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/How_is_language_used_in_worship.pdf

I really disagree that "Father" is just a metaphor for God. It is true that God is not a human being, but that doesn't mean all language about God is merely human. That would go against the doctrine of the Incarnation and the iconic nature of Jesus' personhood, that he reflects to us who the Father is. Jesus is not just somebody that shows us what God is like, he is God's own self-manifestation, including the language that he used about himself and his Father.

I find it particularly strange the ELCA defends the continued use of the Trinitarian baptismal formula on ecumenical grounds, yet in their own liturgy, you rarely hear this formula used outside of baptism. This goes against the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Deferring to ecumenical authority on such a crucial matter is also problematic from a Lutheran theological standpoint, since the Lutheran confessions are usually regarded as a sufficient statement of Lutheran faith.

It's something that has bothered me. The pastor and people at church are great people. But, the worship just doesn't do alot for me. I'm becoming more of a notional Christian and feel alienated from the worship.

I am not a Lutheran. I wonder if some of your feeling comes from the reality that much of contemporary liturgical structures have done much to amplify the understanding of the immanence of God, and yet in the process seem to have failed dismally in proclaiming the transcendence of God. Recently I attended a very much older style service in the full glory of the Anglo Catholic Tradition, and was reminded of what it is to see in worship a glimpse of heaven. I think we need worship to be more uplifting, not just feeling the love.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, that's part of it. The theology of divine immanence is paramount.

There are times the services are better. The pastor actually read from the King James Bible. And there was a prayer that the pastor took from Fr. James Baron (who is Catholic) that was very powerful. But much of the material that the ELCA provides is just the bland sort of stuff of the liberal mainline that doesn't have the beauty or theological integrity of traditional worship.

 

[wayfaring man]

Most groups depend of having many members, and when society as a whole is shifting away from many traditional ideologies and attitudes those highly concerned with 'numbers' are constrained to shift with the status quo.

In John 6 Jesus spoke some 'hard sayings' which drove many of his 'followers' away. He apparently was willing to see even his closest disciples abandon him also, rather than deviate from what His Father had bid him to do and to speak. For he knew quite well that God is The One we cannot do without, and if following Him means being forsaken by everyone else - it is still infinitely better to stick with God than follow mortal man.

 

[Sammy-San]

On many issues I would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the forum. However, on side I can identify with the conservative viewpoint is traditional language about God.

I go to an ELCA church but I've been noticing that alot of the worship materials go to great lengths to use gender inclusive language about God. It bothered me at first, but I believe in prudence and caution in my estimation of things, so I just tolerated it for a while. But lately it's been bothering me, because I've seen my own spiritual life degrade. I feel like the God being presented is more of an impersonal reality, like pantheism. I don't think the denomination's approach results from entirely well-thought out, conscious decisions to abandon belief in a personal God. I do think it rests alot on a desire to be inclusive, to the point that it challenges the particularity of the Christian belief in divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

This paper by the ELCA sums up their logic for using inclusive language: http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/How_is_language_used_in_worship.pdf

I really disagree that "Father" is just a metaphor for God. It is true that God is not a human being, but that doesn't mean all language about God is merely human. That would go against the doctrine of the Incarnation and the iconic nature of Jesus' personhood, that he reflects to us who the Father is. Jesus is not just somebody that shows us what God is like, he is God's own self-manifestation, including the language that he used about himself and his Father.

I find it particularly strange the ELCA defends the continued use of the Trinitarian baptismal formula on ecumenical grounds, yet in their own liturgy, you rarely hear this formula used outside of baptism. This goes against the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Deferring to ecumenical authority on such a crucial matter is also problematic from a Lutheran theological standpoint, since the Lutheran confessions are usually regarded as a sufficient statement of Lutheran faith.

It's something that has bothered me. The pastor and people at church are great people. But, the worship just doesn't do alot for me. I'm becoming more of a notional Christian and feel alienated from the worship.

What is your arguement-God shouldnt be called father?

 

[ImaginaryDay]

That was a hard document to read. Along the way, the authors drew an incorrect line between 'neuter' and 'feminine' language, and the use of "feminine" pronouns to describe God. English is the only language that does not have this masculine/neuter/feminine distinction as do many foreign languages. That's what makes English sometimes hard to grasp. But the neuter/feminine tense has nothing to do with masculine or feminine pronouns.

Also, the very thing they've said not to do:

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.

Is exactly what they do:

Similes may be used to address God. For example, "God who cares for us as a mother hen cares for her chicks" or "God, who watches over us as a sentinel standing watch by night…."

Other forms of addressing Jesus include using Christ, Teacher, Emmanuel, Savior, Redeemer, and Word.
http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/How_is_language_used_in_worship.pdf

Finally, the idea of "The ecumenical church (being) presently engaged in discussions seeking to expand and enrich language used to address the triune God, (and that) such discussions eventually may produce additional formulations (for baptism)" is just disturbing.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is your arguement-God shouldnt be called father?

I'm not looking to start an argument so much as a discussion. I'm genuinely interested in hearing different viewpoints.

 

[Tigger45]

Situations like this are why I like confessional denominations. As long as the things you disagree with them on are non-deal breakers then these issues don't come up and cause problems down the road.

 

[hedrick]

The PCUSA moved to inclusive language decades ago. We avoid using male pronouns (except with Jesus, of course), and otherwise try to be gender-neutral. But we still use "Father," and the Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There was a period when people experimented with Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. I don't object to that language, but if used as the primary term for the Trinity it can be modalist. I haven't heard that language for a couple of decades, at leat not as the primary language for the Trinity.

I do see issues with father. The primary one is that it suggests that God is male, which is false. The other is that it can sometimes cause problems for people with bad relationships with their fathers. But I don't see a good replacement, and it was Jesus' preferred language.

 

[hedrick]

Finally, the idea of "The ecumenical church (being) presently engaged in discussions seeking to expand and enrich language used to address the triune God, (and that) such discussions eventually may produce additional formulations (for baptism)" is just disturbing.

It's actually true, sort of. But those discussions haven't really gone anywhere, and I doubt they will. The PCUSA recently signed an agreement with the Catholic church for mutual recognition of baptism That agreement commits us to baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Philip_B]

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God,
everlasting, without body, parts, or passions;
of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness;
the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.
And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons,
of one substance, power, and eternity;
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost​

 

[FireDragon76]

I do see issues with father. The primary one is that it suggests that God is male, which is false. The other is that it can sometimes cause problems for people with bad relationships with their fathers. But I don't see a good replacement, and it was Jesus' preferred language.

That's the real issue. What makes us think that we are better at figuring out how to address God, than Jesus Christ? Was everything Jesus said and did merely culturally conditioned human attempts at understanding God?

And doesn't this prejudice against this male pronoun thing suggest that there's something wrong with being male or gendered?

I know I have in the past said that I found "Father issues" a barrier, but lately I've realized the alternative is actually worse. The offense of particularity is part of the Christian message.

And "Godself" is just a horrible neologism. This sort of language really does cut off mainline churches from the wider evangelical world. To the point it isolates us. Pick up a popular devotional or practical theology book and you will not find this type of clinical, sanitized, cautious language about God.

 

[Albion]

That's the real issue. What makes us think that we are better at figuring out how to address God, than Jesus Christ? Was everything Jesus said and did merely culturally conditioned human attempts at understanding God?

And doesn't this prejudice against this male pronoun thing suggest that there's something wrong with being male or gendered?

I know I have in the past said that I found "Father issues" a barrier, but lately I've realized the alternative is actually worse. The offense of particularity is part of the Christian message.

And "Godself" is just a horrible neologism. This sort of language really does cut off mainline churches from the wider evangelical world. To the point it isolates us. Pick up a popular devotional or practical theology book and you will not find this type of clinical, sanitized, cautious language about God.

Very well said, FD. If we were speaking of another human, we'd say that this process "dehumanizes" the person. How much worse it is when it demotes God to an abstract concept.

 

[FireDragon76]

Very well said, FD. If we were speaking of another human, we'd say that this process "dehumanizes" the person. How much worse it is when it demotes God to an abstract concept.

To be fair, at critical points in the Liturgy, God is referred to as "Father", and the Trinitarian "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is still used during the sacraments, and the Lord's Prayer is still traditional. So it hasn't quite gone off the deep end. But the tendency is heading there.

Another thing I notice is that the elders of the Church do not speak about God in this contrived manner. The pastor really does not (but the visiting bishop did in his sermon), neither does the woman who frequently leads the children's church segment.

In fact sometimes I notice the pastor will read the prayers ad libbed and slip in "Father" where it is not present. The current order of confession being used has the word "God" in it so many times, it almost sounds like something about which my old English teacher would have scolded her students. So the pastor, whether intentionally or not, ends up ad-libbing in pronouns or "Father" into it. And the language of that particular order of confession is just thoroughly nerfed in general, having a 4th grade reading level and absent traditional theological concepts like sin, being full of modern pop psychology cliches instead ("messed up", "puts us together", etc., instead):

"

Even when we have done wrong, God makes us right. Even when we have messed up, God
puts us together. God’s love never runs out. God never tires of
calling us beloved children.
Hear God say to you now: Your sins are forgiven, for the sake of
☩
Jesus Christ our Savior.
Amen."

Oh yeah, note the absence of "God never tires of calling us HIS beloved children". Big difference in meaning by dropping that pronoun.

It's really made me appreciate older liturgies. The modern Catholic liturgy really wipes the floor with any mainline liturgy I have heard. It's unapologetically irrelevant to the fads of the day.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I am a traditionalist. I think inclusive language is sometimes taken to the point of absurdity. I once attended a national church gathering of another Christian faith expression where a person explain to me why they say "Kindom" during the Lord's prayer rather than "Kingdom." I say it every time this topic comes up: I think it is the height of arrogance for anyone to think they know how a prayer should be said better than our Lord who gave it to us.

 

[Albion]

It's really made me appreciate older liturgies. The modern Catholic liturgy really wipes the floor with any mainline liturgy I have heard. It's unapologetically irrelevant to the fads of the day.

The older Catholic liturgy, yes. I can't agree that the new liturgy 'wipes the floor with any mainline liturgy,' though. However, we're into personal judgments and preferences now, and I am one who thinks that the liturgy according to the historic Book of Common Prayer is still the standard when it comes to what we've been talking about here.

 

[FireDragon76]

and if following Him means being forsaken by everyone else - it is still infinitely better to stick with God than follow mortal man.

Thee Bible also doesn't present being a loner as the norm for the Christian. We are instructed to gather together for "breaking of bread and the prayers". I've spent the better part of a decade looking for a church to call home. The Lutheran parish is the last church I found acceptable, I really would not know where else to turn. In short, perfect obedience sounds great, until you realize that there are so many commandments we are bound to fail keeping them all.

 

[FireDragon76]

The older Catholic liturgy, yes. I can't agree that the new liturgy 'wipes the floor with any mainline liturgy,' though.

Catholics made some changes during the last couple of years away from the loose dynamic equivalent translation of the late 60's, I think you would be surprised.

I wouldn't exactly consider the 1928 BCP used by any mainline churches. It even seems dead in the Episcopal Church, unless you consider 1979 Rite I, and even then that seems to be on life support (personally, I prefer it).

 

[Albion]

It is dead in The Episcopal Church, yes, but remains the standard in ACNA and the Continuing Anglican churches.