catapult magazine

just a quick intro to a topic i’ve been meaning to post about for a couple of days now…some folks at our church have been discussing what to do about gender language in liturgy, hymns, Scripture, etc. as it refers to God (ex. “seek the Lord while He may be found”).

does anyone have any thoughts on this or want to offer arguments on either side of the debate?

Matt, your point is well received. Our liturgies, hymns, prayers, and worship styles are shaped by God’s people, so that services may look differently from one congregation to the next. Actually, it can be very invigorating to see how God’s people have given creative expression to worship of God. Differences can be appreciated, and should not be obliterated.

To say that gender issues are a matter of linguistics, not theology, however, is to sever the ties of liturgy and church practice to Scripture. It’s a sort of dualism that affirms that we can be subject to Scripture here (as in theology), but not there (as in, you say, linguistics). Regardless of time and culture and linguistic developments, we must bow the knee to whatever Scripture truly affirms.

That having been said, you’re free to affirm that Scripture doesn’t truly affirm use of gender specific pronouns. I think this may be what you’re trying to get at, especially when you say that Scripture doesn’t condemn or condone use of certain pronouns.

I think this position is untenable. The use of male specific pronouns is inseparably connected with how Scripture instructs to call upon God. I noted earlier that Jesus instructs us to pray, “Our Father, who art in heaven…” Consistent with Jesus’ instruction, Scripture consistently uses male pronouns to identify God. You argue that we’re free to be more gender inclusive in liturgies, hymns, and prayers. Should we pray, “Our God, who art in heaven…”? This would certainly be consistent with use of “God’s self” in place of himself. Yet, in using this terminology, we’ve lost something very important, namely the personal relationship we have with God in Christ. What a comfort it is that we can cry out, “Abba” which in Greek is scandalous to those who want to make God impersonal and overly transcendent, because it’s like saying, “Daddy.”

I think changing pronouns in reference to God is less faithful to Scripture for a couple reasons. First, it pretends to be wiser than God, who used such words to identify himself. Was God forced to use those pronouns? Should we pity God because he didn’t have our langauge to communicate better? I don’t think so. He speaks to us in language we can understand. “Father” communicates in a way “God” alone does not, and “himself” (standing in for “Father” which is undoubtedly linguistically male specific) communicates in a way “God’s self” does not. Secondly, along the same lines, it fails to communicate the richness of Scriptural imagery. It is possible to call upon our “Father” and then immediately begin to refer to him with more gender inclusive language, which I think rather undermines what God is trying to communicate. God consistently uses male pronouns to identify himself. These male pronouns support the affirmation that God is our heavenly Father. Just as God telling us to call upon him as our Father is amazingly loving, so are all the male pronouns that reassure that God is our Father. This, I think, is the reason he uses male pronouns. Pronouns stand in for terms; “he” and “himself” stand in for “our Father.” Switching from the undeniably linguistically male “Father” to a gender inclusive term precludes it from standing in for “our Father.” This only causes God’s people cognitive dissonance. “What is this non-gender specific term standing in for?”

Part of the reason I’m stressing this point is because I want you to know that I have the comfort of God’s people in mind. I don’t think you were implying that I was trying to perpetuate male dominance and other evils, but I want to be sure.

I think it would be possible to use male pronouns referencing God less. I’m certainly not saying we have to it all the time. “You” stands in for God as well as “he.” Not ever using “he” is not only awkward but confuses people. To avoid using male pronouns altogether out of fear that we might give offense only demonstrates greater love for our neighbor than for God, who has spoken to us in specific ways and told us specifically how we are to call upon him. Though God is Lord of the universe, he is also our Father. What comfort!

?If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.?

- Martin Luther

anton, your argument against contextualization is well said.

i agree completely that there is a danger in excessive contextualization. i love the biting sarcasm in pedro the lion’s “letter from a concerned follower:”

i hear that you don’t change
how do you expect to keep up with the trends
you won’t survive the information age
unless you plan to change the truth to accomodate the brilliance of man
the brilliance of man

(interesting lack of gender inclusiveness on those last lines, actually). but i do think that we need to realize that the bible was written in a particular context—and that there are elements of scripture that specifically relate to the context they were written in, and are primarily intended for the original audience. (e.g. 2 timothy 4:9-15) yes, all scripture is God-breathed, useful for teaching, etc, but (unless you believe you are commissioned by God to find paul’s cloak and bring it to troas) you have to admit that the documents were intended for a specific audience first, and the general audience second. (this doesn’t necessarily indicate an importance—just a chronology). God chooses to communicate in particular places and times, and to speak in ways that the people of the time understand—so i think it’s too simplistic to say “every word in Scripture is inspired and authoritative” and leave it at that. we also need to look at the whole of scripture and to consider the cultural references for what they are or may be. yes, it’s harder, but i believe it’s more faithful.

Luther would have probably taken these following verses as central to the Word of God. Do you?

1 Corinthians 14:34 – Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35 – And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Part of the reason I’m stressing this point is because I want you to know that I have the comfort of God’s people in mind. I don’t think you were implying that I was trying to perpetuate male dominance and other evils, but I want to be sure.

On the contrary, I think you make a very valid point. To remove all pronouns for God out of our liturgy, scripture, hymns, prayers and proclamation would be to remove those basic elements in our language that personalize God. Kirstin’s earlier example from Isaiah 55:6 is a great case in point of how difficult it would be to remove, or even substitute, those (he) pronouns for God.

However, I am still convinced that whenever possible, we should challenge ourselves (by our own speech and actions) to seek out ways that offer up an inclusive image of God to a world that is both fractured and hurting. If, through our thoughtfulness and faithfulness to the scriptures we can show our God to be a God that transcends even our limited language (this is what I meant by linguistics), then perhaps others will be captured by that same vast embrace that has captured us.

Luther would have probably taken these following verses as central to the Word of God. Do you?

1 Corinthians 14:34 – Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1 Corinthians 14:35 – And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1 Timothy 2:12 – But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I?m not exactly sure where this posting by Dan fits within the current discussion. I can only guess that it has something to do with the earlier comment that I made regarding the use of the Bible as proof-text. For this, I truly apologize to those of you who are trying to keep this discussion on track. Chalk this up to a thoughtless comment made by one of those darn ELCA-liberal types.

In response to Dan’s question, I cannot really say where Luther might have come down regarding these passages. As a contemporary of his own time, I would assume that he would have treated these texts in light of the sixteenth century church that he was a part of.

As you are probably well aware, there is a great deal of debate among scholars today regarding these verses in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36. It seems to fly in the face of other Pauline writings and may have been addressing particular issues within a particular group of churches, and not the church as a whole. For example:

1. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he refers to women praying and proclaiming God?s message in public worship. (1 Cor 11:5)
2. In his letter to the church in Ephesus (Romans, chapter 16), Paul recognizes and introduces the woman Phoebe as a "deacon" (not a deaconess) of the Christian church in Cenchreae. (Rom 16:1,2)
3. In the next few verses, Paul refers to the woman Prisca and her husband Aquila as his coworkers, who also host the church at their house. (Rom 16:3-5)
4. And just two verses later, Paul addresses the woman Junia and her husband Andronicus as apostles — even as "prominent among the apostles." (Rom 16:7)
Therefore, we are left to wonder if Paul is truly being inconsistent here, reacting against a threat of ‘unruly’ women by forbidding their verbal participation, despite what he had earlier allowed, or if this passage is an interpolation into the letter by a later editor.
A similar case can also be made for the verses that were cited in the Pastoral Letters — 1Timothy 2:8-15.

This would certainly be an interesting topic to debate, well worthy of discussion; however might I suggest that it be separated out of this present subject, in order to allow greater consideration of those who wish to continue on the current topic of gender.

The reason why I brought it up is because I don’t think this discussion is really about gender at all, but about how to interpret scripture. The difference does not lie in whether God is a man, woman, etc, but on what to do with scripture when it seems to offend our sensibilities, or? I brought up the bit about women, because I think even mrsanniep would be offended if I asked her to keep silent in this debate because she is a woman. So when the Bible seems to put women down, I think that is a serious problem, but not a problem of gender… The problem is how to think about inspiration and interpretation, isn’t it?

I agree with Dan. Gender inclusive language is a secondary issue in this discussion. The primary issue is biblical interpretation. Actually, I think it is even more fundamental than that—this is really about revelation. How can God be known? How does God communicate?

So I’m going to venture into that territory for a moment. For those who are sighing in frustration because I am going off on a tangent, forgive me. But like—dare I say it—our appropiration of revelation, discussions are never static. At a basic level, to be a Christian means to assign authority to Scripture. But their is certainly not a consensus on the nature and scope of this authority within the Christian community—especially in the last century. On one level, the debate is about how Scripture is authoritative. Is every word literally inspired or is it the concepts and narratives that are inspired? Is Scripture written by God with humans only taking care of the logistiics, or is Scripture written by fallen humans (with particular situations and limitations) receiving inspiration from God? But on another level, the debate is also about the scope of Scripture and how it fits into revelation at large. Those who argue for the validity—however qualified—of using gender-inclusive language place more credence on the roles of history and expereince than those who are leary of it. On the other hand, those who place primacy on Scripture largely to the exclusion of history and experience are concerned (and rightly so, I think) about how easily truth is debased and faith becomes whatever one wishes it to be when it is contextualized within history and culture.

Though I find this concern to be valid, I think history, community, and experience are venues in which God communicates. And I think we miss out on the unfolding story of God’s work in the world if we don’t recognize that. Certainly Scripture is the ultimate authority, but Scripture isn’t always self-interpretting. We need the Holy Spirit. (I think pretty much everyone would agree with that.) But how does the Holy Spirit work? I think that the unfolding of history has been part of it. Therefore, we understand revelation more clearly in certain contexts. The abolition of slavery is a good example. Each generation, certainy has its blind spots, but they can also see things that their parents didn’t. And sometimes historical situations can bring out reform and renewal. Some would call such “reform” spineless accomodation to culture. And I’m the first to admit that this does happen—all too frequently—within the church. We often buy into whims (usually the most idiodic of them) of culture that happen to be popular at the moment. But usually we are about 10 years behind and our knock-off versions of x cultural phenomenon are often laughable and embarassing.

But genuine reform—Spirit-led even—is also possible. And this reform can bring about new understandings or practices that are actually more faithful to Scripture. We’re ever reforming. And sometimes it takes new historical situations to locate those areas that need reform within the church and society. Cynics might say that this is just a less embarassing way to describe how Scripture is bastardized to accomodate a particular cultural sensibility. But it could be in some cases that a particular cultural sensibility is actually more faithful to what Christianity should be than what prevailing Christian sensibility is. I think the environmental movement is a good illustration.

Certainly this approach requires a lot of discernment. Unfortunately we Christians often suck at discernment. But I don’t see any other way.

I don’t think that was a tangent at all, janel. That articulate response cuts to the heart of the issue.

I smiled with glee when I heard you all talk about what we were talking about. It can be so frustrating when we’re talking past one another because we’re talking about different things or assuming we agree on basic points when we really don’t.

I agree with Janel and Dan that this discussion is about issues other than gender inclusiveness. I further agree with Janel that this discussion is about revelation. I would be even more specific and say that this discussion is about our doctrine of Scripture. What is our doctrine of Scripture?

The answer to this question is of basic importance for our discussion. Before we talk about interpretation and application of Scripture, we must first agree on what we are talking about in the first place. What exactly is the Bible? What are dealing with when we talk about the Bible? From the outset I would say that there are two basic positions:

1) The Bible is the word of God. Every word in the autographa (original manuscripts) is inspired, infallible, and inerrant. Moreover, every word has a human and divine author.

2) The Bible is partly the word of God, partly the word of men. There is a “canon within a canon.” In other words, part of the Bible is authoritative because it is God’s word and part of the Bible is not authoritative, because it is not the word of God.

So, is every word in the Bible (or at least the autographa) the word of God, or must we admit that some of it is the word of God and some is the word of men? I don’t think either position is without difficulties. There’s a lot to explain on either position, but despite those difficulties its useful to have one or the other serve as a guideline.