Rev. Tom Lenhart
Sermon April 29, 2007
“Inclusive Language: the Importance and Limits of Language”
Galatians 3: 23-29

Let us pray.

When inclusive language first became an issue of discussion prompted in part by the women’s movement, I confess I thought it was a side issue. Equal pay and equal rights for women and minorities were what was important. Did it really matter all that much if we said “chairman” rather than “chair”, or “mankind” rather “humankind”.  Overtime my views changed with the help of others.

          Yes, language matters. What we call or name things makes a difference. The words we use matter beyond their direct import. Hear, these words of fair Juliet to Romeo:  

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is not part of thee
Take all myself.

But as you will recall to be called a Montague rather than a Capulet made all the difference.

           Think about how words have evolved for identifying ethnic groups and races. For the most part we no longer use the ethnic slurs common in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Likewise, in the last 70 years, well meaning whites have gone from using the term “colored” or “Negro” to use of “Black” or “African-American” to describe our fellow children of God of a different race. The words we use are important for both the user and the hearer. Don Imus lost his job because the words he used were offensive to his hearers -- at least most of them, offensive and hurtful to the members of the women’s basketball team at Rutgers who were the subject of those words, but also because they revealed something about him. That at a minimum he would use (and had in the past) hurtful, derogatory language to make a joke -- to gain laughs and/or acceptance from a certain slice of our culture by use of cheap and offensive rhetoric.

          The importance of language runs beyond the literal definition of the words to the images that the words conger in our minds. So it is that to use today the word “colored” – a term used commonly by well meaning people 60 years ago -- carries with it the picture of a divided America a half century ago – with whites only accommodations and restaurants, with drinking fountains -- some for “white” people only and some for “colored” people, and with access to public transportation limited to the back of the bus for those with black skin. It was a world in which African-Americans were treated and seen by many as inferior.  Language creates profound meanings and images for users and hearers both. Does anyone doubt that those images inform our conduct and our actions? Through the use of such words -- a past world in which human beings were separated and valued according to race -- influences and affects at least in subtle ways our conduct now. So it is that we rightfully have embraced new terms and expressions. Language and words matter!

          As you know churches have gone through the question of the use of inclusive language. It is reflected in the hymnals that most churches now use and often in the language of prayers and litanies in use in our worship services. Such broadening of our language is not simply a reflection of keeping up with our culture. There are, I believe, theological reasons why inclusive language is appropriate in the church. Let us start with our text from Galatians. To understand this passage we need to remember what is going on in Paul’s world. One of the most difficult issues for the early followers of Jesus was what if any place did Gentiles -- usually Greeks -- have in their faith communities. The disciples and the others following Jesus in the beginning were devout Jews. They were individuals who abided by the religious laws, traveled to Jerusalem for Passover and the other holy days and were in all respects faithful Jews. After Jesus’ death the movement focused principally on spreading the story of Jesus – the Good News -- to other Jews.

            After his Road to Damascus experience Paul felt a calling to spread the Good News to the Gentiles.  Eventually, the leaders of the early church, James and Peter, approved this new mission. But the question remained -- what did the Gentiles have to do to become followers of Jesus? Did they have to embrace the full scope of Jewish law – circumcision, the dietary and purity rules to become followers of Jesus? In our passage today we have the tail end of Paul’s words to the Galatians about what is necessary for Gentile believers. In essence Paul says that Gentiles do not need to become Jews but can through Christ become one with God. As Paul describes it, through Christ, Gentiles become heirs along with devout Jews to the promise God made to Abraham that he would be father to a great people – the people of God -- as numerous as the stars. So it is that Gentile through faith in Christ become engrafted into and a part of that line of people descended from Abraham -- people of God -- without having to be circumcised and abiding by the other ritual rules. And so Paul declares, “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female for all are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3: 28)

          What Paul is saying is that in the church there are no distinctions between believers. In Paul’s world the great fault lines separating people were ethnic/religious ones -- Jew from Gentile, economic/legal ones -- free from slave, and gender ones -- male from female. These distinctions were the lines of exclusion that dominated all life. On the one side of the line you were “a have” on the other side your were “a have not.” But not in Christ’s church. There were most certainly males and females and free and slaves within the community in Galatia but in that church Paul argued, there were no distinctions based on these differences -- for all were equally children of God and in the early church equally able to be leaders.

           Paul’s message is as apt for us as for the early church in Galatia. The distinctions that separate people have no place in our community. That is not to say that we are all alike – thank God we are not – that we have the beauty of divinely inspired diversity. No, the point is that our differences do not in God’s eyes and must not in our churches serve as bases for exclusion. If the church at it best stands for anything, it is inclusiveness – in welcoming the stranger whether like us or not.

          And this characteristic, I submit, spills over into the language that we should use. It should also be language of inclusiveness. It should be language that affirms our equality in the eyes of God and the “splendidness” of our diversity. So it is appropriate to talk about our forbearers rather than only about our forefathers.

The more challenging area is in the selection of words to describe God and the Trinity.   Much heat has been generated over this issue -- probably not matched by an equal amount of light. From the beginning finding words to use for God has been difficult and inadequate. How many here have heard of the term “tetragrammaton”? It means in Greek “four letters”.  The word for God in Hebrew was simply four letters, YHWH, with no vowels. While it may have been pronounced in the beginning, over time because of its sacredness, Jews stop saying it and, indeed, we do not know for sure how it was pronounced. It became Yahweh -- that is the four letters with consonants added -- when Christians apparently took a different word, Adonai, which means Lord and attempted to meld them together. I mention all this not to bore you with a lecture on words, but to highlight the difficulty from the beginning that people of faith have had in finding language for God. Nor should that be surprising. God is sacred and in the most fundamental sense transcends definition. God is truly beyond our ability fully to know or to capture in language. As Paul in his letter to the Philippians notes -- God is truly beyond our understanding.  The words we use for God at best describe an aspect or two of something that has an infinite number of aspects. The scripture excerpts in your bulletin highlight this. God is variously referred to in these passages as “a light”, “my rock”, “my fortress”, “my deliverer”, “my shield”, “my horn”, and “a devouring fire”. Each provides a different picture -- a different image of God -- and says something slightly different to us about God. And these are only a small cross section of the terms used for God in scripture. And, of course, every one of them is right and appropriate -- albeit incomplete.   As William James wrote in The Varieties of Religious Experience,

… ‘the divine can mean no single quality,
it must mean a group of qualities, by being champions of which in alternation, different men may find worthy missions.’[1]

           Different words for God speak to different people and to the same person at different times. It may be that the word “Father” is right at one time or it may be that the phrase “breath of life” may capture at a particular moment what we need to hear. As I mentioned in the Carillon some months age, I took a class on prayer in divinity school. Our teacher, an Episcopal priest, asked the class to describe God. Some declined saying, “God was indescribable.” Others ended up describing a grandfather like figure with long usually white hair and a beard – an image much like the pictures that used to be on the walls of Sunday school classrooms.   In the minds of those who saw this father figure -- he was often God, the boss  -- a commander giving out orders to creation, a judge weighing our conduct, and an executive running everything from a distance. And, of course, this God was male. We then were asked to use a different word for God perhaps “friend”, “mother” or “comforter”. At least for some the use of a different word brought a different image of God and opened up the experience of prayer for new possibilities. The fact, of course, is that no one or even group of images can fully capture the “uncapturable” – the indescribable.  What is important is the lesson that with each new word or phrase and associated image often comes a new and sometimes fuller way to understand God. 

          The importance of using inclusive language -- that is multiple descriptions -- comes not simply because they help us to broaden our understanding of God, but also because some words carry unfortunate baggage for some people. There are sadly in our world some, who have been the victims of abuse or worse at the hands of a father-like figure. For them the word “Father” as the only shorthand for God may inescapably carry unfortunate baggage. So too, one who has lost a house to fire or had a loved one or friend suffer burns may not find the phrase “a devouring fire” to be a helpful term for God. So it is that use of a variety of terms as the scripture itself does, may aid in connecting the church in all of its diversity -- with God in meaningful way.

                   The real challenge is how and when do we do use inclusive language. Inclusive language does not mean exclusive language. It does not mean that we are to jettison some words. So it is wrong, I believe, to think, for example, that we should never use the word “Father” to describe God or never use the term “Lord”. They are just as useful in our time as they were in biblical times. The challenge is to leaven those terms with others.  In your bulletin are a serious of phrases and words for God identified by Ruth Duck an able writer of modern hymns. As I read through the list, I found ones that spoke to me and others that did not. I suspect that is true for each of you -- though our lists of likes and dislikes are probably not identical. That is, of course, the challenge -- to find words that help us to better know and connect with the indescribable God. And in using language we must never forget the power of familiarity and tradition. The worship experience at Christmas is enhanced, I believe, because we know the words of the carols  --we sing without looking at the page. As we sing those words we are connected to past Christmas moments and the meaning of Christmas is enriched. The use of inclusive language is, thus, always to be leaven by an awareness of the importance (but not the supremacy) of tradition.

          Hear these words of prayer

Eternal One, Father and Mother of us all,
Holy is your name.
Let justice and mercy fill all Creation
and let us recognize that every thought and thing belongs to you.

Feed us with the bread we need for today.

Forgive our sins

as we forgive those who sin against us.

Stand with us in trial and temptation.

Free us from the grip of all that is evil.  

For you alone are creating our universe,

now and forever.

Many of your will recognize it as a modern version of the Lord’s Prayer.  It is a fine prayer and has a place in our worship. Not as a replacement for the Lord’s Prayer but on its own -- as an enrichment of our worship experience.  At its best inclusive language broadens and enriches it must never exclude and narrow.

Let us pray, Gracious God, Creator, Redeemer, Comforter, Healer of us all, you have given us the richness of language with its diversity of words, help us always to use language and words in ways that help us all to better know you. Amen