Gender Inclusive Worship Could Be Coming to a PCUSA Church Near You
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, June 19, 2006
- Viewed 78
- (23) comments so far
Delegates to the meeting voted to “receive” a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won’t be required to use them.
“This does not alter the church’s theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,” legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday’s debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek “fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God” to “expand the church’s vocabulary of praise and wonder.”
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son “has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women,” the panel said.
Conservatives responded that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible and noted that Jesus’ most famous prayer was addressed to “Our Father.”
Besides “Mother, Child and Womb” and “Rock, Redeemer, Friend,” proposed Trinity options drawn from biblical material include:
— “Lover, Beloved, Love”
— “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier”
— “King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love.”
Early in Monday’s business session, the Presbyterian assembly sang a revised version of a familiar doxology, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow” that avoided male nouns and pronouns for God.
Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper “suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God.”
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say “the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be “theologically confusing and divisive” at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.
On Tuesday, the assembly will vote on a proposal to give local congregations and regional “presbyteries” some leeway on ordaining clergy and lay officers living in gay relationships.
Ten conservative Presbyterian groups have warned jointly that approval of what they call “local option” would “promote schism by permitting the disregard of clear standards of Scripture.”
---
FOR DISCUSSION: I know we’re probably not strong in our PCUSA consituency here at MMI, but are there any out there who would like to give their response and ideas on this ‘inclusive worship’ idea?
The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly, according to FoxNews.com...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
JHPW on Tue, June 20, 2006
Of for crying out loud! This kind of stuff drives me crazy! I don’t have a problem with some of their alternative phrasings, but I draw the line at Mother, Child, Womb. Jesus walked the earth as a man…He referred to God as His Father. References to God and Jesus in the Bible refer to them in the male gender. Get over it!!! Maybe the ‘PC’ in ‘PCUSA’ should stand for ‘politically correct’. Sorry for the rant. My parents raised me in a Presbyterian Church, and this kind of stuff serves to remind me why I left it and never looked back.
kent on Tue, June 20, 2006
Amen to JHPW. Uff da, when will it stop? I guess some people only learn the hard way.
Pastor Dan on Tue, June 20, 2006
We cannot re-invent God to shape Him towards our cultural bent. Sad news.
Daniel on Tue, June 20, 2006
I think it’s a good idea, personally. The scriptures tell a story, they don’t instate a new legalism. If we truly believe that ‘God is spirit’, and that God is therefore not gendered (at least not in the way humans are), that both male and female reflect the imago dei, why not express the mystery of the Trinity as ‘mother, child, womb’? It is a break from scripture, but to be clear, so is the word ‘Trinity’. There’s a difference between boldly re-expressing scriptural truth in new ways, and defiantly contradicting scripture. I have no reason to believe that (all of) these ways of giving voice to the central concept of Trinity violate what scripture tells us about God. It is a positive development.
No one is claiming to ‘re-invent’ God, anymore than using words like ‘trinity’ or ‘triune Godhead’ (unscriptural expressions!) ‘re-invent’ God. Quite simply, our language is evolving, and this resolution ensures that our speech about God is more accurately conveyed than if we obstinately clung to old expressions (like those who would still cling to the KJV bible).
My two cents.
nora on Tue, June 20, 2006
Daniel, I always enjoy reading what you have to say, as you usually offer a fresh perspective on things. However, I have to disagree with you here. You say, “There’s a difference between boldly re-expressing scriptural truth in new ways, and defiantly contradicting scripture. “ I agree with that, but I disagree in that I think “re-expressing” the Trinity as “Mother, Child & Womb” do contradict scripture. God is Spirit, but He is always referred to as “He”, and when He came in the flesh, Jesus was most definitely a “He.” As for the Womb-Holy Spirit expression, I really don’t even understand the connection there. The metaphor makes no sense. The deeper issue is that PCUSA feels that calling God a “He” is in some way offensive to people. Why? I am a woman, and I have never felt offended by these terms before. And, I submit, if I were to feel offended, that offense would be my own problem. As the Lord Himself said, “I am”; the rest of us just need to deal with it, not redefine it so it no longer offends our sensibilities.
Daniel on Tue, June 20, 2006
Nora,
You’re right, Jesus was a he. Jesus was a Jewish man who lived in the 1st century. There’s really no getting around that. Perhaps PCUSA is trying to be ‘P.C.’ by saying “child” instead of “son”. However, I am told that in both Greek and Hebrew, the feminine pronoun is used for the Holy Spirit. In proverbs, ‘wisdom’ is a woman. Whether what I am told is correct or not (I don’t know Greek or Hebrew, so who knows?), it is undeniable that scripture contains a string of feminine metaphors for God who nurtures first Israel then the church at his (her?) breast; who longs to gather his people up like a hen gathers her chicks; like a mother cares for her son.
Since all of our speech about God is in a sense anthropomorphic (an accomodation to human language—because there is no ‘non-human’ language with which we can speak about God), God-talk always ‘pushes’ linguistic limits. So Jesus is a lion, but Jesus is a lamb. The Spirit is a person, but not like you or me. God’s image is reflected in male and female, but God is neither. The trick then, is to find adequate ways of speaking about God, pointing to God with our speech, without assuming that our speech in some way ‘contains’ God. So the Church has always referred to God as ‘he’. But is there a sense in which the Godhead is more masculine than feminine? Surely we must affirm Jesus’ embodiment as masculine, but what of the ‘Father’? What of the ‘Spirit’? “Father” and “Spirit” convey truth, but only metaphorically (simply because ALL of our God-talk is metaphorical). While ‘mother/child/womb’ (where womb is probably a metaphor for nurturing presence) certainly makes me as uncomfortable as the next typical evangelical, I think I see what PCUSA is trying to do. They are trying to be true both to the ways in which our language is changing, and the way in which God truly transcends our language. This is the ultimate embodiment of ‘relevance’—an attempt to re-express truth without idolizing past expressions of the same truth.
nora on Tue, June 20, 2006
Daniel, I don’t know the answer, either, to the Holy Spirit question (maybe someone out there who is more knowledgeable could help us out), but I really feel the whole issue is silly and borderline dangerous. Quite frankly, it makes me wonder if someone at PCUSA read The Davinci Code and became a convert to its “sacred feminine” theology. And while I am all for relevance, and I think metaphors are cool, this to me seems closer to a redefining of truth than a “re-expression” of truth. Thanks, though, for, as always, offering some interesting insights.
Dave Z on Tue, June 20, 2006
I’m on staff at a PCUSA church, but I encountered this stuff some years ago when I was involved in a national event for the American Baptists. An event organizer objected to the 2nd verse of “Our God Reigns” because it uses male language to refer to Jesus. While holding back a guffaw, we pointed out, as graciously as possible, that Jesus was indeed male. The next day another “authority” figure questioned the use of the NIV due to it’s “chauvinistic” language. The American Baptists are also deeply divided on the question of ordination of homosexuals. The Pacific Southwest region is in the process of withdrawing from the denomination over these issues and I foresee the same thing happening with the PCUSA, although the fact that the denomination owns all church real property will complicate things more than in the American Baptist camp. ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
But I’d like to find out what y’all think about this: some members of our church intend to leave our congregation if the gay ordination issue is approved, based on 1Co 5:11 “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” They say this means they have to leave our church, even though as a congregation we are pretty dang conservative and are joined with many other PCUSA congregations in actively opposing these trends. Keep in mind that we would not be bound to implement these suggested changes. I kind of feel like such an attitude is equivalent to a soldier leaving the battle. What do y’all think?——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————And say, how can I insert a line break in these posts?
Dave Z on Tue, June 20, 2006
OK, pardon my test, but I may have figured out the line break thing. The line break doesn’t show up in the “Live Comment Preview” but it does after I submit. Let’s see…
Testing…testing…
Wendi on Tue, June 20, 2006
Dave,
I recall a UMC pastor one time stating that his church stayed within the denomination voicing their opposition to liberal theological trends for the very reason you cited, not wanting to be a solider leaving a battle.
If I recall my recent study of church history and denominations, a primary reason that the Amish broke from Menno Simons and the Mennonites was over that very verse 1 Cor 5:11, and the issue of shunning. But with all the sins listed in this passage and elsewhere in scripture, if we were to banish every unrepentant sinner from our churches, Sunday mornings would have pretty scanty attendance. I can think of more than a few Sundays in my own life when I didn’t really deserve to worship with my faith community (if genuine repentance is the qualifier).
What troubles me about this silly effort to create a version of the bible with gender inclusive language . . . is that it will stall genuine and helpful discussions about women in ministry and leadership. I can just hear it at the board meeting now, “see what I told you Fred . . . as soon as we let a woman make announcements on Sunday, they’re wanting to re-write the bible.”
Sometimes it seems like for every two steps forward we take three steps back . . .
Wendi
Andy McAdams on Tue, June 20, 2006
DEBATE ON THE TRINITY? What a waiste of time. However, this doesn’t surprise me and is one reason I left the PCUSA years ago . You only debate such things when you throw the authority of the Bible out as was done decades ago in one of their so-called General Assemblys. What bothers me even more is that much of the world is going to Hell and people that “call themselves” ministers spend time debating a foundational truth of scripture. Sad indeed, but nothing new with the PCUSA and many other mainline churches like them.
Andy McAdams on Tue, June 20, 2006
Wendi: Women in ministry is not a debate in the PCUSA. That debate was over 30 years ago with them….pretty much.
Wendi on Tue, June 20, 2006
Andy,
I know that about the PCUSA. What I meant was that this kind of ridiculous discussion hinders other more healthy discussions for churchs/denoms where, when they really explore, are realizing that much of their patterns have been based on tradition more than theology or careful and thoughtful study of scripture.
Wendi
Daniel on Wed, June 21, 2006
Randy, I realize that using a feminine article to refer to the Spirit does nothing to argue for more feminine metaphors for God. I’m a native French speaker, so cars are feminine (la voiture) and veils are masculine (le voile). Perhaps I should have bypassed the article point altogether, but I was simply meaning to highlight non-male metaphors for God in scripture (wisdom as a woman being one of them).
Andy, I understand your frustration over the apparent oddness of what PCUSA is trying to do, and with others I’ll readily point out that you can no more take away Jesus’s maleness than his Jewishness (church history is replete with efforts to do the latter, though we’re seeing a modern trend of doing the former).
However, no one has taken the time to say specifically WHY it would be ‘wrong’ to label the Father as ‘Mother’. So, imagine, instead of “Mother, Child, Womb”, that it had been “Mother, Son, Nurturing Presence”. I’d imagine you’d (we’d!) all balk at ‘mother’. The question is ‘why’??? From a theological perspective (rather than the perspective from tradition: “we’ve always done it thus and such a way”), WHY is that ‘wrong’? (I’m not saying it’s right, or good, or better—I’m just curious to see if there’s anything more at work here than just some old-fashioned sensibilities being jarred out of their environment—that’s an intentionally provocative statement—please respond—prove me wrong!).
Cheers,
-Daniel-
nora on Wed, June 21, 2006
Daniel, to answer your question as to why we would all balk at the use of “Mother” in the Holy Trinity, the answer for me is simple: Christ referred to God as Father. This is not simply church tradition; it is the words of God Himself to describe Himself—Father. If that’s not enough, the fact that Mary is clearly identified as the mother of God precludes anyone else from assuming that title. It has nothing to do with tradition (believe me, I’m not a traditionalist) and everything to do with recognizing the appropriate roles of the key players in this most Holy of Stories.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment