Speaking the Unnamable--Finding Faithful Words

The language of the Divine is as old as religious expression itself, yet in Abrahamic traditions, including Christianity, this form of religious expression has been discouraged. In contemporary western society there has been much emphasis placed on the equality of the sexes, yet the patriarchal tone of religious expression is still prevalent in many settings. The freedom of religious expression afforded the individual under the auspices of western society has led to a blossoming of spiritual thought which has allowed a whole plethora of religious understanding, among them has been the language of the Feminine.

The patriarchal concept of the Divine has early roots in the nomadic lives of the early Hebrews. Their God, Yahweh, was one God amongst many competing tribal deities. Yahweh was a masculine and warlike God who led his people through their travels and smote enemies, internal and external. This was the God of Abraham from which sprang all three of the great monotheistic traditions. The lens through which they viewed their deity was passed down to its descendent Christian and Islamic traditions. While not always anthropomorphized, this deity was regarded as gender-masculine and the traditional language of religious expression that grew forth reflected as such.

Today we find much of the same language in use and given even greater weight and authority due to its ancient origin and continuous usage. It fills the language of Christian Scripture, and only by creative linguistic interpolation can we see the glimmer of Asherah and feminine divinity as exemplified in the Wisdom writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. The traditional masculine viewpoint has provided a strong attractant in its contemporary incarnation: a divine father figure, benevolent, forgiving, and full of love for his “children”, not the Yahweh of early Judaism but a linear descendent of the same gender paradigm.

Adherents of this viewpoint tend to be less open to linguistic change, approaching the question from their unique and individual perceptions. Some may accept the historical language as entirely adequate, remaining comfortable with traditional religious expressions, and though they do not oppose change in principal, fail to see any reason to do so. Others see the language as factual, understand God as masculine, and are opposed to any sort of gender swapping on the basis that God is in fact male. Whether they reject the new paradigm out of personal predilection or, as defenders of traditional faith expressions, they see change as a divergence from their understanding of the tradition.

The movement towards change is as diverse as that promoting conservative constancy, perhaps more so. Some are motivated by “political correctness” seeking to project the gender parity found in secularism into the religious world. Some are in rebellion against the system of patriarchy supported by their perception of male orientated gender bias in the established traditional texts and language. Some remember personally negative paternal experiences. Others reach back through the mists of time towards the Goddess oriented religions of the early historical and prehistorical periods. And still others are guided by the burgeoning Christian Feminist and Womanist theological movements.

The movement towards change appears to be more diverse than the movement to protect constancy and the status quo. This may be due in part to the wide range of perspectives that are being brought into motion from all over the religious landscape, oftentimes with little or no cohesiveness or common agenda. The defenders of traditionalism need only circle their wagons and oppose all comers in defense of what they seek to preserve. The forces of change, each aspiring to bring about transformation, seek to promote their own particular vision of change in fulfillment of their own unique and individual agendas. Agendas as diverse as bringing the Goddess back into the liturgy to the use of more inclusive liturgical language. This has added another dimension to the struggle as the forces of change find themselves in conflict with one another as well as with proponents of more traditional expressions.

Ecclesial bodies have approached this struggle from necessity and have adopted different modes of address. The mainline denominations have adopted inclusive language statements. Earlham has issued a statement guided scripturally by Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. Earlham’s statement further states that “Unity is broken when language is used that negates, excludes or interferes with an individuals experience of the wholeness of God and community”This understanding of “God Beyond Gender” perhaps opens up a third way, independent of either side in the conflict over gender based religious linguistics. We can sense the essence of this path in the ECLA’s statement on language in worship. In it the ECLA’s governing body states that while using the descriptive “Father” in the lords prayer, “This address does not ascribe human male sexuality to god but is an intimate address of the loving and trusting relationship between parent and child”The ECLA statement further elaborates when it states, “Because language is created and used by humans, it reflects the imperfections and limitations of humanness. Therefore, no use of language can ever totally describe or represent God”

Gail Ramshew addresses this linguistic struggle eloquently in her book, aptly entitled “God Beyond Gender” “The current wave of linguistic reform, producing at once delight and horror, seeks to diminish, if not eliminate andocentric speech from the language of worship” She approaches this problem through a five-fold process: 1) Examine the experience of the church, 2) Analyze how liturgical structures and speech form the minds and ethics of the faithful, 3) Study the Bible and the Christian tradition to discover the most effective presentation of the Gospel in the past, 4) Edit out what obscures the Spirit, what no longer, to use Martin Luther’s phrase, “Speaks the Gospel” 5) Reinterpret what is salvageable so that it more clearly “shows forth Christ””

The tension produced within, and between, the various denominations of Christianity only seems to be increasing as the discussion broadens. The mainline denominations, by formally adopting inclusive language have struggled with internal dissent. The more conservative denominations have drawn a line in the sand and see many professing Christians moving beyond their understanding of Christianity. The third way hopes to provide a path of reconciliation. Following a genderless path could provide a framework under which all but the most strident adherents from either side could meet upon common ground, and in doing so preserve the language of divine expression, provide linguistic commonality, and promote ecumenical understanding within the broader Christian faith.

---