Ship of Fools: Our mother in heaven?

Thread: Our mother in heaven? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030377

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

THIS is just one of the many recent reports about the call for liturgies to refer to God as "she" as well as "he".

Now I realise that there is a whole debate to be had about whether or not this should happen. This is not intended to be such a debate. If I have time, I might start such a thread in Purgatory (or Dead Horses?), but equally it is open to anyone else to start it, if they want.

What I want to ask is this: if we assume (theoretically) that such liturgies should be developed, how might they look? What principles should be followed?

This is a question I am very interested in at the moment. I was challenged on Sunday by a young woman, who said that my repeated use of the word "Father" was difficult for her. When I checked the liturgy, it actually wasn't used that often, in fact. But it was clear that this was a problem for her.

But how might we develop liturgies that are less "male-centric" in referring to God?

A couple of things spring immediately to mind.

First of all, I think you have to be consistent within a service. I think it would be strange and off-putting to refer to God as "he" in one sentence and then to "she" in another. So I would say that one principle would be "be consistent in your terminology throughout the service."

Secondly (and this is really a development on the first point), I think that use of "gender-neutral" images for God need to be carefully and consistently used. If you want to talk about "God the Creator" or "God the Rock", then do so, but don't use 1001 different images in the same service.

That's about all I have for the time being. But I would value serious discussion on this area. (In other words, if all you want to do is scream hysterically about "those nasty Libruls", go to Hell!)

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

If anyone has been confused by why there's apparently a 'debate' on this, Thinking Anglicans has the best collection of links I've seen.

Anyway, the places I've been to which would do this would disagree with your first principle. People who have found the constant reference to God as Father as unhelpful would appreciate that constant reference to God as Mother to be equally unhelpful. Therefore a balanced variety would be preferred.

I suppose you could argue for different words on different weeks, but there are problems for visitors or others who miss the entire cycle of naming. (Generally churches seem to try very hard to make sure each service makes sense on its own. I'd like to say they try too hard, but I can see why it's necessary)

A complete profusion of different gender neutral images would essentially become an image of God on its own. A very valid one, but not the only one. So once in a while, the service of 1001 images of God could be fun but, done every week, it would be too limited. If someone were to make a service which consistently referred to God as, say, the Rock (and never use any anthropomorphic image), they'd have to do a good job of putting some theology behind why that's the right thing to do that week. A couple of uses of some image like that, alongside a more usual use of the church's normal practice regarding anthropomorphic images might work better.

I'm aware that what I said about mixing Father and Mother contradicts what I've said about non-anthropomorphic images. That seems to be the right thing to do as the non-anthropomorphic ones somehow feel less personal to the hearer and hence less powerful. So you can use them with more freedom of flexibility.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

But how might we develop liturgies that are less "male-centric" in referring to God?

Toning down male language is not necessarily the same as including female language. For example, addressing God in the second person is fairly easy to do in a gender-neutral way, and much of the liturgy could be worded to use second-person pronouns rather than third.

Per Oscar's request, I make no comment as to whether or not this is desirable.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Anyway, the places I've been to which would do this would disagree with your first principle. People who have found the constant reference to God as Father as unhelpful would appreciate that constant reference to God as Mother to be equally unhelpful. Therefore a balanced variety would be preferred.

I suppose you could argue for different words on different weeks, but there are problems for visitors or others who miss the entire cycle of naming.

Hmmm. I get your point, although I'm not sure I completely agree. I still feel that mixing references during the same service could be very confusing - again especially for people who don't attend that often.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Toning down male language is not necessarily the same as including female language. For example, addressing God in the second person is fairly easy to do in a gender-neutral way, and much of the liturgy could be worded to use second-person pronouns rather than third.

That's very true, although you still have to have things like the Lord's Prayer and any blessing which refers to the Trinity.

(I'm afraid that I still have difficulties with the types of blessing that refer to God the Creator, God the Saviour and God the Sustainer (or such like), as these tend (in my opinion) to so separate the work of the Trinity as to effectively suggest that we worship three gods)

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Per Oscar's request, I make no comment as to whether or not this is desirable.

Thank you. I am not convinced myself that this is a desirable thing to do, but simply want to work out some ideas of HOW it might be done in practice,

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Anyway, the places I've been to which would do this would disagree with your first principle. People who have found the constant reference to God as Father as unhelpful would appreciate that constant reference to God as Mother to be equally unhelpful. Therefore a balanced variety would be preferred.

I suppose you could argue for different words on different weeks, but there are problems for visitors or others who miss the entire cycle of naming.
Hmmm. I get your point, although I'm not sure I completely agree. I still feel that mixing references during the same service could be very confusing - again especially for people who don't attend that often.

Based on my own experience, I agree with *Leon* that if feminine references are desired (without getting into that debate), a balanced variety in a single service is preferable to masculine references in one service and feminine in another. I think the trick is how the balance is achieved. To go from "Father" or "he" in one sentence to "Mother" or "she" in the next sentence would indeed be jarring. But it's not jarring to pray "our Father . . ." at one point in the service and to sing "As with a mother's tender hand, God gently leads the chosen band" ("Sing Praise to God, Who Reigns Above") at another point. Indeed, newer hymns can often provide a way to achieve some balance.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Toning down male language is not necessarily the same as including female language. For example, addressing God in the second person is fairly easy to do in a gender-neutral way, and much of the liturgy could be worded to use second-person pronouns rather than third.
That's very true, although you still have to have things like the Lord's Prayer and any blessing which refers to the Trinity.

(I'm afraid that I still have difficulties with the types of blessing that refer to God the Creator, God the Saviour and God the Sustainer (or such like), as these tend (in my opinion) to so separate the work of the Trinity as to effectively suggest that we worship three gods)

What I find in Presbyterian services is a general avoidance of first person pronouns for God in favor of second person pronouns (easy enough in prayers) or in favor of sentence construction that doesn't require pronouns (which sometimes is easy and sometimes requires a fair amount of craft). I also find a use simply of "God" to mean the first person of the Trinity. This gives me some pause to the extent it could suggest the Son and the Spirit are not God, but on the other hand it is biblical ("Now may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit . . .), and it does reflect common usage. It also provides a form of blessing that avoids possible overuse of "Father" and the potential "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" issues.

A Brief Statement of Faith of the Presbyterian Church (USA) includes these lines:

quote:
We trust in God,
whom Jesus called Abba, Father. . . .
Like a mother who will not forsake her nursing child,
like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home,
God is faithful still.

(The entire statement can be read here.)

I find that many use this approach as a way of balancing masculine and feminine images—metaphor rather than "he" or "she." Indeed, one of our ministers always began worship with "Like a mother who will not forsake her nursing child,
like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home, God is faithful still. Let us worship our faithful God." So there, at the very start of the service, there was a balance, but it was in how God was described rather than in how God is addressed.

[ 04. June 2015, 18:18: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
"Like a mother who will not forsake her nursing child,
like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home,
God is faithful still.
Let us worship our faithful God."

I like that. The use of balanced (and biblical!) images makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I'm always amused at people's failure to understand linguistics and therefore to make judgements about language used in church. People object to the use of the word man and in the next breath use the word Lord without any recognition of the incongruence. It would be very difficult to sanitise the whole church language without creating something that sounded ridiculous. My suggestion would be to leave well enough alone.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This is from the Trinity Mass we use.

You will hear the invocation, the kyrie and then the hymn of glory. In the hymn of glory you w2ill hear the praise of the female Holy Spirit.

Corrected link

[edited to correct link although it is only accessible for Dropbox users]

[ 05. June 2015, 09:46: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm always amused at people's failure to understand linguistics and therefore to make judgements about language used in church. People object to the use of the word man and in the next breath use the word Lord without any recognition of the incongruence. It would be very difficult to sanitise the whole church language without creating something that sounded ridiculous. My suggestion would be to leave well enough alone.

I'm inclined to agree with bib here. When Jesus described God as "Father" He was using a metaphor, not previously unknown in Judaism, which likens God to a loving and protective human father, as in the parable of the Prodigal Son. But then as now, people would have recognised it as a metaphor for something quite impossible for the human mind to grasp. When I pray to God, I sometimes call Him "Lord" or "Almighty God" or "Father" all words that are regularly used in the English language to speak the unspeakable.

So I don't personally need any new words for God, because I don't believe that God is a man or a woman, and we only describe Him at all because of the limitations of the human mind when confronted with the infinite and eternal. To chop and change between masculine, feminine and gender inclusive terms for God within the same liturgy seems to me to be absurd. So what's wrong with simply keeping to the metaphor which Jesus gave us, while recognising it for what it is.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

(I'm afraid that I still have difficulties with the types of blessing that refer to God the Creator, God the Saviour and God the Sustainer (or such like), as these tend (in my opinion) to so separate the work of the Trinity as to effectively suggest that we worship three gods)

CSF often use 'Glory to God, Source of all Being, Eternal Word and Holy Spirit' at the end of psalms which I like for not separating the works of the Trinity, but avoiding gendered terms. They also often use versions of the Magnificat and Benedictus recast into 2nd person, (which are ELLC alternatives) which I greatly prefer because it makes more sense to praise God while talking to her rather than about her. The Nunc is in the 2nd person anyway.

Carys

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So I don't personally need any new words for God, because I don't believe that God is a man or a woman, and we only describe Him at all because of the limitations of the human mind when confronted with the infinite and eternal.

Well, this is the debate that Oscar asked in the OP that this thread stay clear of:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Now I realise that there is a whole debate to be had about whether or not this should happen. This is not intended to be such a debate. If I have time, I might start such a thread in Purgatory (or Dead Horses?), but equally it is open to anyone else to start it, if they want.

What I want to ask is this: if we assume (theoretically) that such liturgies should be developed, how might they look? What principles should be followed?

So I'll simply say that this always seemed to me to be an area where Paul's advice about weaker brothers and sisters and meat offered to idols is apropos. Just because some personally have no problem with male-exclusive language for God (or humanity) doesn't mean that no one finds it to be a stumbling block, or that those who do are unreasonable or ignorant of the language. Why insist on something that is a stumbling block to fellow Christians if a way can be found to eliminate, or at least mitigate, that stumbling block in a manner that has integrity for all worshippers? And that, I think, is the liturgical challenge Oscar is asking about.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

The use of gendered language to refer to any or all of the Divine Persons is not actually a Dead Horse and has been discussed in Purgatory in the past.

However, I would tend to agree with the OP's suggestion that this thread should concentrate on how this pans out in worship, liturgy, hymns and so forth. This is much more in the spirit of Ecclesiantics. If we're really lucky it could even become a source of practical help! [Biased]

Your cooperation as ever is appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
CSF often use 'Glory to God, Source of all Being, Eternal Word and Holy Spirit' at the end of psalms which I like for not separating the works of the Trinity, but avoiding gendered terms.

CSF?

And I like that form of doxology too, and I appreciate how it avoids verging on modalism, which is always my concern with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer."

[ 05. June 2015, 21:09: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
CSF often use 'Glory to God, Source of all Being, Eternal Word and Holy Spirit' at the end of psalms which I like for not separating the works of the Trinity, but avoiding gendered terms.
CSF?

And I like that form of doxology too, and I appreciate how it avoids verging on modalism, which is always my concern with "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer."

Community of St Francis - the first order female Anglican Franciscans

Carys

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Community of St Francis - the first order female Anglican Franciscans

Ah! Thank you.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

I always hope that by opening worship with "We have come to worship God, whom we know as Creator, Father, ad Friend, as Jesus the Galilean, the risen Christ, the ever-present Spirit, source of all love, and as the greatest mystery of all" I have made every worshipper feel included (it was one of the congregation who wanted 'friend' included) and then, like clergy among my friends, I try to avoid pronouns, and speak to or refer to 'God'. Not difficult.

I brought home from Canada a sung blessing of the UCC which uses the image of "God's sheltering wings, her sheltering wings" with a footnote to say that "his" could be used. With the more traditional congregation of our holiday location I printed 'his' but mentioned that 'her' was offered as an alternative and spotted dear B, a most conservative lady, who kind of bridled at the suggestion. Back home I printed 'her' and invited people to sing what they were comfortable with – a younger woman who sang 'her' reported that she did so with tears in her eyes.

Google produced orders of service from numerous CCA congos, some of which stuck with 'his', some used 'her', one used 'God's', one used 'her' at the beginning and 'his' at the end, and so on.

All of which is not to make recommendations, but to observe that the issue is a live one, that very awkward solutions can result, and that it might be easier to accommodate in non-liturgical traditions

GG.

Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on :

I know I'M uneducated in theology and have no great ability at guessing what the Bible might be really saying, but it seems to methat if we look at what Jesus said in Mathew 6 9-13 or Luke 23 34 or even John 10 30 we could possibly have an educated guess at the gender Jesus thought his father was,and as he is a part of the trinity that is GOD he would probably know wouldn't he? Or did he get wrong,or not mean what he said? Just a thought.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I'll simply say that this always seemed to me to be an area where Paul's advice about weaker brothers and sisters and meat offered to idols is apropos. Just because some personally have no problem with male-exclusive language for God (or humanity) doesn't mean that no one finds it to be a stumbling block, or that those who do are unreasonable or ignorant of the language. Why insist on something that is a stumbling block to fellow Christians if a way can be found to eliminate, or at least mitigate, that stumbling block in a manner that has integrity for all worshippers? And that, I think, is the liturgical challenge Oscar is asking about.

Not sure about that. Shouldn't it equally apply to protect those for whom people fiddling around with the traditional - and scriptural - language is a stumbling block?

And if not, why not?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So I'll simply say that this always seemed to me to be an area where Paul's advice about weaker brothers and sisters and meat offered to idols is apropos. Just because some personally have no problem with male-exclusive language for God (or humanity) doesn't mean that no one finds it to be a stumbling block, or that those who do are unreasonable or ignorant of the language. Why insist on something that is a stumbling block to fellow Christians if a way can be found to eliminate, or at least mitigate, that stumbling block in a manner that has integrity for all worshippers? And that, I think, is the liturgical challenge Oscar is asking about.
Not sure about that. Shouldn't it equally apply to protect those for whom people fiddling around with the traditional - and scriptural - language is a stumbling block?

And if not, why not?

That's why I said that making any changes to language in a way that has integrity for all worshippers is the liturgical challenge. That said, what I was responding to was the statement "I personally don't need any new words for God," which suggests that the fiddling around is seen as unnecessary, not the statement that "changing the language makes it harder for me to worship."

[ 06. June 2015, 14:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

There's a "Psalter for the Christian People" that recasts references to God into the second person. Otherwise, it's a pretty straightforward BCP rendering. I'm not a fan of its layout - it's harder to use than the BCP, in my opinion. Plus it's one more book to have in the pews or chairs. But it's also one more precedent, and it's already out there.

Here's a link. It is billed as an inclusive-language rendering of the 1979 BCP psalter.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Very often using the word God instead of Father. Just when it fits. Its possible to say 'this table' in place of his, though maybe changes the sense?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0