HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Gender Inclusive Worship Could Be Coming to a PCUSA Church Near You

Orginally published on Monday, June 19, 2006 at 9:45 PM
by Todd Rhoades

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...

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?


This post has been viewed 1648 times so far.


 TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 24 Comments:

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by kent

    Amen to JHPW. Uff da, when will it stop? I guess some people only learn the hard way.

  • Posted by

    We cannot re-invent God to shape Him towards our cultural bent.  Sad news.

  • Posted by Daniel

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Daniel

    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.

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by

    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?

  • Posted by

    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…

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by Andy McAdams

    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.

  • Posted by Andy McAdams

    Wendi:  Women in ministry is not a debate in the PCUSA.  That debate was over 30 years ago with them....pretty much.

  • Posted by

    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

  • Posted by Daniel

    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-

  • Posted by

    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.

  • Posted by Daniel

    But Jesus didn’t refer to God as “the first person of the Godhead”, either.  I know a number of theologians who do, and nobody puts up a stink about that.  Clearly then, there is more going on here than just using new titles for God.  I don’t think PCUSA is saying that “Father” is bad, but rather that God is both “Father” and “Mother"--maybe that’s where some of the confusion is coming from.  So then we’re not taking away from what Christ said, we’re adding to it (much like theologians add to it with their formulations of the Trinity).
    Any other ideas?

  • Posted by Andy McAdams

    Daniel,

    I’ll pass on your challenge to prove you wrong.  Sometimes these things are endless debates which I stopped doing long ago.  No offense, just don’t want to go there.  There is to much in this world to focus on otherwise and to much need in the church at large I want to put my energies. 

    I would like to mention however that in regards to the PCUSA not thinking that saying “Father” is bad but that saying that God is both Father and Mother”...well believe me I doubt very much that is the intention of those involved with this.  I could be wrong, but from my experience and my past membership in the denomination, that’s not their motivation. 

    I admire David for his stand within the denomination and if you go back to his post and see the other issues also being discussed at the General Assembly, (homosexual ordination) you will get more of the condition of the church.  I find it sad and pray for those still inside that wish to stand for biblical Christianity.  OK...enough said from me.

  • Posted by

    “I don’t think PCUSA is saying that “Father” is bad, but rather that God is both “Father” and “Mother"--maybe that’s where some of the confusion is coming from.  So then we’re not taking away from what Christ said, we’re adding to it (much like theologians add to it with their formulations of the Trinity). “ While I agree that the word “Trinity” is not in the scriptures, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are most certainly delineated in the scriptures, so that “Trinity” is a simple recognition of those entities, for lack of a better term.  So I don’t think that theologians are adding anything not specifically mentioned.  The term “Mother” applied to God, however, is, as you said, most certainly an addition, and that’s where I’m very uncomfortable.  Also, you say that PCUSA is not saying that Father is bad, but when the article mentions that they changed their doxology to delete male pronouns, I’m not so sure that they don’t think that it’s bad.  Well, I’ve probably reached my quota here Daniel, so I’ll have to close with that.  Thanks for a very interesing discussion!

  • Posted by Daniel

    Thanks to both of you, Nora and Andy, for being willing to revisit this issue.  I certainly want to stand by both of you against those who would “delete male pronouns” (we can all agree that that’s just silly).  I too have undoubtedly reached (gone over!) my quota for this thread.
    Cheers!
    -Daniel-

  • Posted by

    As a newbie to your site and discussion, let me commend you on a very enlightening discourse.

    I believe that Daniel really has expressed the essence of the situation at PCUSA.  I do not know if some of the more liberal factions of the denomination have an agenda with this policy paper, but it really does not matter.  After study, prayer, and discourse, the General Assembly decided to receive the document but it did not approve it.  Basically they said that you are not seen as being wrong if you use these alternate gender or gender neutral analogies, but no one is forced to accept them or use them in Worship or teaching.  Of course, the leadership and planners at PCUSA always attempt to make a point or show solidarity when none exists; and, they did the Doxology in gender neutral terms.  It most likely did not help anyone feel differently about their position, but it probably made quite many on both sides of the debate uneasy.

    I am a life long Presbyterian, starting life in the United Presbyterian Church and now in PCUSA.  I may be one of a small percentage of the Presbyterian laity that has actually read the Book of Confessions, which outlines the underpinning of our denomination’s belief system.  I have even read sections the Book of Order, which constitutes the rules and regulations under which our denomination is governed.  Presbyterians are a complex denomination with many contradictory terms that can describe us.

    To get a real sense of Presbyterianism, you only have to remember that a great number of the Founding Fathers of the USA were Presbyterian.  The local churches, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly are just like the towns, states and federal government.  We are a representative democracy that believes the Spirit will work through the debate to reveal a greater understanding of God, His Grace, and the response we are to have to Him and It.  That upsets many of Presbyterians (especially the Pharisees among us) and makes it hard for outsiders to understand us.

    Presbyterians believe deeply in the Bible, but we know it was written by human beings with their own agendas.  We believe deeply in God as revealed by the Bible and the Trinity, but we know that this is just like looking in a bad mirror or through a clouded telescope lens.  God is bigger than our limited concepts and certainly bigger than our limited abilities to use language to describe Him.  We use certain conventions in our language as it pertains to God, but they are human creations.  The true test of these new alternate gender or gender neutral analogies will be in how they help believers and non-believers understand the hard concepts of God.  Do they help us be better Christians?

    It is silly to discuss and debate this issue?  Yes, but what is the alternative.  The alternative is to blindly follow convention; to perhaps be less clear; and to perhaps miss Christ’s Gospel.

    We are called to the best examples of Christ that we can be.  We are called to break down barriers that separate people from the love that God freely gives.  We are called to be the love of Christ in action.  If alternate gender or gender neutral analogies of the Trinity assist us in these tasks, then let us use them freely.

  • Posted by

    This is a sad day for the Christian Church.  It is time to consider the scriptures, not the culture at the moment.  How wonderful when we can say, “The Lord says...” not “The popular culture, society, or the national convention says...” Those will be words worth listening to!

  • Posted by

    This is a real easy problem for you Presbyterians to solve:  those who wish to call Jesus “mother” etc. ought simply to tranfer to the “Epsicopagans” whose new Presiding Bishops has already stated her belief—in a prayer, no less—that Jesus is “our Mother who birthed us”.

    I mean, why reinvent the wheel???

    lol

    Joe of the Mountain
    Visiting Anglican

  • Posted by

    I have posted a couple of times, this will be my third post total.
    I am an ordained PCUSA minister and I was in attendance of this and all meetings of the GA. What was not reported anywhere, (including my beloved Fox news) was that the policy report first and foremost upheld the “Foundation of our understanding of the Trinity, is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

    All this policy paper did was allow pastors and pastoral counselors to be more creative in expressing ways to help people understand the concept of the Trinity. There is truly no difference between this and St. Patrick using the clover to teach the Irish the concept of the Trinity. 

    Moreover, as a minister and pastoral counselor I can assure you that when a woman comes to my office and has been abused by a man--husband, father, brother, etc.--praying a prayer of comfort to an all male God, often causes more harm than good.

    Initially following abuse a victim is not ready to hear that wonderful truth that The Father loves her. We work to that point. I begin with getting a victim to hear words of Creator, Etc. I, as do most PCUSA pastors and members, believe the Trinity is indeed the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, just as Christ met the woman at the well in the reality of her life--with all of its sin and sufferring--this affords us the Spirit guided freedom to do likewise.

    Also, one of the CONSERVATIVE members of the GA did indeed use the phrase, “Mother, Child & Womb,’ to make the point. It backfired. The entire assembly groaned at how grating and painful it sounded. Yes, there will always be those who want to push an agenda. But this policy paper affirmed anew our understanding of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It also gave us the freedom to meet people where they are in their lives, so that as their faith grows, they can understand the mystery and the majesty of the Triune God--Father, Son & Holy Spirit!

  • Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: