‘Inclusive Language’ and Problems in the Mainline

Recently in sorting through old files, I found one entitled “Guidelines for avoiding sexist language in worship.” Most of the material was from the 1970s and 80s. It was a reminder as to why many United Methodists during that era were becoming disaffected with the church’s seminaries and bureaucracy.

Methodism, once a bottom-up movement, was becoming a top-down organization. Elites told the rest of us what to believe, how to act, and, in this case, how even to speak.

According to a Time magazine article “Unmanning the Holy Bible” of Dec. 8, 1980, the sexual-textual revolution was coming to Scripture with plans for the revision of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. It was not just sexism under attack. It was also racism, classism, militarism, and lots of “-isms” that make this less than a perfect world.

The RSV Bible was not the only part of Christian faith that mainline progressives believed needed revising and updating. In the late 1970s I was part of the doctrinal task force of Good News. We had written letters to each of the seminaries inquiring about whether the schools had adopted “guidelines” for acceptable and unacceptable language uses in the seminary’s worship and academic life.

For the most part, they had. Garrett-Evangelical, for instance, had declared that in May of 1978 that worship, masculine words like “father,” “brother,” and “kingdom,” when used generically, were to be avoided. Historic liturgies or creeds were to be changed when possible. This was also true for hymns.

While this was happening in all of the mainline denominations, United Methodists already operated under rules prepared for the church by the General Council on Ministries. These were articulated in a policy manual entitled “Guidelines for Eliminating Racism, Ageism, and Sexism From United Methodist Resource Materials.” Dated July 1979, these guidelines had never been approved or even discussed by the UMC’s governing General Conference. They were, however, for the most part, already operating in church school materials, official church journals and in denominational gatherings.

An 8-page statement from Wesley Theological Seminary issued in 1979 under the title “Toward more inclusive language” stated (among many other things):

If we are going to alter attitudes about human equality and opportunity, we need to eliminate exclusive language: for language both expresses and encourages discrimination within the church and in society at large. Not only do we form words in order to express our ideas, but words form us and often determine our ideas. Hence patterns of language which may be doing harm must be challenged—especially since such harm is often inflicted unconsciously and without intention.

1980 was my first General Conference as a part of a delegation (I was an alternate). The major evangelical concern at this conference was not language but the doctrinal statement, designated giving, local pastors, and COCU (yes, there was also the matter of homosexual practice). However, I remember some of the discussions. On the near horizon was the new Inclusive Language Lectionary of the National Council of Churches, hymnal revision, and various strategies for overcoming racism, sexism, militarism, homophobia and a number of other social sins in society. At this conference legislation was passed authorizing a Task Force on Language Guidelines formed by the General Council on Ministries.

The task force reported to the 1984 General Conference with a statement, “Words That Hurt, Words that Heal.” The report spoke of altering liturgies, Scripture, hymns as well as daily discourse. Originally the report even called for a monitoring agency such as the Commissions on Religion and Race and the Status and Role of Women. The agency would enforce and ensure language policies were followed. The conference heard the report and then in a response of compromise (or perhaps ambiguity and confusion), neither adopted nor rejected the report, but simply “received” it. Good News understood this to mean that while the church needed to be sensitized in its language about persons, there was no mandate to change biblical images and language in Scripture or hymns or liturgies. Liberals in the church believed that “receive” was the same as “approving.” In succeeding General Conferences and in annual conferences, teams were established to monitor not only how often various white males or youth or people of color were speaking in the legislative groups, but also how “exclusive” was the language they were using. This was not the church’s finest hour. Overseas delegates, and especially those not acquainted with U.S. social issues, were frequently confused and embarrassed.

Meanwhile, the concept of inclusive language was expanding. Perhaps other groups besides women felt demeaned by language. Negative references to “darkness” could be degrading to blacks. References to “heathen lands” could be insulting to developing nations. The use of words like “dumb” could be offensive to deaf persons. It was even argued that a phrase like “being seated at the right hand” was demeaning to the left-handed.

The same 1984 General Conference authorized a Hymnal Revision Committee, which had enough good sense to deliberately broaden its membership to include more than professional musicians and church bureaucrats. I was privileged as a “consultant” to make the committee more inclusive, serving on the Wesley and “Language and Theology” subcommittees.

A district superintendent at the time, I took advantage of my position to seek input from persons who attended the fall charge conferences. I distributed about 1,000 survey sheets to persons in more than 70 churches. Nearly 95 percent of the responses supported traditional language in matters of hymns, liturgies, and Scripture. At the same time, a Board of Discipleship study concluded that only 13 percent of United Methodists (clergy and lay) believed “more inclusive language” was a factor in the need for a new hymnal.

Nevertheless, the Hymnal Revision Committee very early in the discussions declared that two hymns, “Onward Christian Soldiers” and “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” would be removed in the new hymnal because of “militaristic” language. Not surprisingly the reaction from ordinary United Methodists was overwhelmingly negative. More than 12,000 letters were received from ordinary church members objecting to the proposed deletions. The actual count of letters supporting the deletions was 57.

For once, the church listened: the hymns were restored.

In the end, the committee had serious discussion about what was best for the church. The new (1988) UM Hymnal became one of the best received denominational hymns of that period. It is not insignificant that in the present turmoil around the matter of disaffiliation many if not most of the churches disaffiliating have expressed a desire to continue using the UM Hymnal.

Hymnals produced by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the United Church of Christ, and Presbyterian Church USA, following guidelines similar to UM’s “Words That Hurt and Heal,” reflecting word changes in a number of hymns, simply did not sell well.

What does all of this have to do with the present church climate and the future of the United Methodist Church? For one, the 1972 church structure following the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren merger, has not served us well. It concentrated power into the hands of superboards. It created a bureaucracy that soon became out-of-touch with ordinary churchgoers.

We have been far too top-heavy for the past 50 years. We need to get rid of perhaps half of the boards and agencies. Though this has been suggested on different occasions (particularly in the Call to Action legislation twenty years ago—which failed spectacularly) it appears that we have neither the will nor the desire for reform. Can this change?

Second, the church must not buy into the newest round of language mangling that is accompanying the cultural changes associated with the approval of transgenderism. These changes encourage persons to select pronouns they wish to be used in referring to themselves. So persons who claims to be transgendered can select “he” “his”  “them” “theirs” “she” “her” or whatever as preferred pronouns with the expectation that this will become a societal norm. Likewise, references to “husbands,” “wives,” and other gender specific words would need to be adjusted.

Third, we must insist that we use integrity in reference to God language as found in the Bible. To substitute phrases such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is serious enough to be considered heresy since it basically denies the doctrine of the Trinity. Roman Catholics have declared this so, as have numbers of other Christian groups. For many of us, the use of “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” in what is purported to be a baptism, raises a question about the validity of that baptism. To then be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, would not be considered re-baptism but valid baptism. It would be interesting to have a church trial on such a case to see how the Judicial Council rules.