Language is a very important part of our daily lives – it provides a means for most of our communication with other people.

People who know that I am part of the community of faith that is St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas often ask me questions about the language policy of our congregation. So in today’s blog I thought it might be helpful to publish our language policy – a document that was approved in 1999 following significant study by the congregation. It is also one that I approve of without exception or hesitation – it has made a real difference in the way I perceive the world in which I am privileged to live.

However, before posting that document I want to pass along a recent blog post written by Jim Rigby, our pastor. These words clearly open the door to the intent of our congregation’s language policy.

Patriarchy’s greatest power lies in remaining a trance through which we perceive the world, but which we do not perceive in ourselves. If we would be serious about ending violence against women and the oppression of sexual minorities we must wage an unceasing war against sexist language, especially in our own words and thoughts. How can we purge patriarchy from our world if we will not even cede its power over our own hearts? Every time we allow ourselves a sexist word or thought, we have delayed the day of justice for women.

The remainder of this post is the language policy for St. Andrew’s as posted on the congregation’s website – staopen.org.

Inclusive Language

Questions and Answers

At St. Andrew’s we are proud of our continuing efforts to be more inclusive. It was back in 1999, after much exploration and discussion, that the Session of St. Andrew’s decided that we will use inclusive language in all events and services that take place here. Additionally, it was decided that we will not make use of “feudal” language when referring to God, Jesus or humanity in general. Here are some answers to common questions about this language decision.

What do you mean by “inclusive language”?

Inclusive language, when used to refer to God, is non-gendered. Therefore, God is not referred to as “He” or “Father”, nor as “She” or “Mother.”

When talking about people, we say things like “humanity” instead of “mankind”, and when nonspecific references are made, we use gender-neutral pronouns. For example, we would not say, “First Church is looking for a new minister; I hope he is a good fit.” Rather, we might say something like, “First Church is looking for a new minister; I hope they find one that is a good fit.” Given that we strive for equality in roles and jobs, we will not assume that a particular unknown person is a specific gender simply because of their position.

What is meant by “‘feudal’ language”?

Some of our language comes from European roots in the Middle Ages, when “kings” and “lords” were common, and power was almost exclusively in the hands of men. When referring to God, we do not use the words “King” and “Lord”, because that would make God male. When referring to Jesus, we do not use “king” and “lord”, because it hints at a hierarchy that we believe Jesus repudiated. Our English word “Lord” is not in the original scriptures because they were not written in English. “Lord” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Adonai” and the Greek word “Kurios.” Both root words are more flexible than our English word, that is, they could change to adapt to gender. What is a “Lord?” To discover the masculine nature of the English word, one need only turn to the dictionary. Whereas the root of the word “lord” deals with bread, it developed to speak of the male who controls the bread. According to the American Heritage dictionary, “lord” is “the general masculine title of nobility.” In the Oxford Dictionary, a lord is “a male peer of the realm, or a man with the title of Lord.” In Riverside’s Webster Dictionary a “lord” is “a man in dominion and power over others.”

Why is this an important issue? Why pay so much attention to making language inclusive?

We believe God is beyond gender. The constitution of the Presbyterian Church makes this clear when it says, “When people respond to God and communicate to each other their experiences of God, they must use symbolic means, for God transcends creation and cannot be reduced to anything within it.” (Book of Worship, W-1.2002)

Later, the Book of Worship states: “The church is committed to using language in such a way that all members of the community of faith may recognize themselves to be included, addressed, and equally cherished before God.” (W-1.2006b) This last selection makes the point: using a male reference to God makes males look more like God than females.

I understand that some people have been abused by their fathers, but for other people “father” is a positive image. Must we discard it?

Abuse is sometimes mentioned to get people thinking about how their language might affect others, but the problem we are addressing is much more wide spread than parental abuse alone. A little girl who constantly hears male imagery for God may conclude that her brother looks more like God than she does. With our theological speech we are trying to envision a new world where all God’s children can come to fullness. This will be more difficult if the language we use in worship pictures God as looking like some of us, but not like others. Our view of life has an effect on the kind of world we produce in our lives. As researchers have tried to discover why some cultures produce rape and battering they have found a few constants. Cultures that link masculinity with control over women will produce more rape. If we wanted to design a rape culture, sexist theology would be a good blueprint. To say that our divine source is male is perhaps the most sexist comment a person can make. To equate the Almighty with masculinity might or might not hurt a particular victim of abuse, but it will definitely teach a view of life where our little girls will be more likely to be abused in the future.

Is St. Andrew’s attempting to be the “thought police”?

Our decision to use inclusive language applies to all our services and events. We are not attempting to control personal religious practice. We would, however, like everyone to be aware of their language habits and always be on the lookout for bias, prejudice and privilege. A constant vigilance is needed to avoid falling into one of our most pervasive cultural traps: sexism. How you address God personally is not at issue here. If thinking of God as male is meaningful to you, then you are welcome to do so. As a member you are free to speak of God in your own way in classes and discussions. It is in our common language of worship and in teaching that we are asking for greater care. While there is a place for airing any opinion or idea at our church, the worship service is not that arena. We insist that worship be a safe place for all people. This requires that we not use language that excludes people for reasons of age, ability, race, gender or any other human condition. Members can speak of God without this burden, but we hold our leaders to a higher standard.

I am a woman raised in the church and this language did not and does not bother me.

It is hard to know when one has become numb. Many churches do not allow women to be leaders. While our denomination does not discriminate to that extent, one can look at how female clergy are treated and realize that the paradigm for leadership is male even in our denomination. Women can certainly rise above the church’s prejudice, but why not insist on being treated fairly instead? Even if you have processed and retranslated the church’s bias against you, you can help us do a better job with our children.

I worry that we will lose the personal aspects of worship. “Parent” isn’t as personal as “Father.” These changes don’t leave me anything personal to hold on to.

This is an important argument. The gendered pronouns were easy ways to convey the personal aspect of God’s love. Luther argued this case when he said that the heart of the New Testament is in its pronouns. At the same time we must never forget that while God is personal, God is not a human person. The Bible sternly warns against our efforts to reduce God to comfortable and reassuring human terms. John’s Gospel reminds us that it is not our love for God, but God’s love for us that is important.Mature spirituality does not try to be a personal friend to God. Mature faith expresses God’s love in real human relationships. What can we hold on to personally? We can hold onto one another. Children do need more concrete imagery to begin their journey. We give them a handle through all the wonderful stories of the Bible, particularly in the life of Jesus who made the love of God very personal.

What if some people are made uncomfortable by inclusive language?

We should always be pastoral to people who are hurting. These changes can feel like a death and some people will need time to grieve the changes. But we must not minister to one group by using languagethat excludes another group.

Shouldn’t we respect Church tradition?

The great formulas of the church give us a common vocabulary of meaning so we can share faith with people all over the world. Unfortunately, a time honored tradition of the church is sexism. Luther said if women die in childbirth it is no big loss since that’s what they were made for. Tertullian said that women are “the gateway to the devil.” The founder of the Presbyterian Church said that to allow women roles of leadership would be an abomination before God. We believe that the discrimination of women should cease. Church unity is not created simply by everyone saying the same creeds. True unity requires the recognition of the worth of each of us. An appeal to tradition could be an argument against any reformation, ever, including Luther’s and Jesus’.

Isn’t this out of step with the vast majority of churches?

Because most churches use sexist terms, we do lose some ability to communicate with them when we remove gendered and feudal language. This is a genuine cost of choosing justice over tradition. Consider the alternative. Does true unity come from reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator? Should we mistreat gay and lesbian Christians because most of the church does? Would this be true unity? Would it be helpful to strip women of leadership roles altogether since much of the church does not consider them worthy of such responsibility? When the church speaks a language that divides the world, it should be no surprise that it is difficult to bring peace to that broken world. It would be better to speak a language that does not divide us in the first place.

One More Thought:

In theology we are not really describing God, because God is beyond human words and comprehension. In theology, we are building a bridge to the sacred through our human images. In theology we are envisioning an ideal world where God’s will for each of us is fulfilled, so it is important not to limit God to a gender. In theology we are putting a face on the sacred. It is important not to say that some faces look more like God than others. Inclusive language for God and people is an important and tangible way to make us all aware of our sacredness. We encourage a constant conversation that increases our understanding of sexism and privilege and how universal love and justice can be lived out in our daily lives.

It has almost been a month since I wrote my last post for this blog. It has been hard to find a rhythm of writing but I feel the need today to share this writing with you because it says a great deal about who I have become – who I am!

I have been invited to preach at the Westminster Vespers tomorrow afternoon. It is always an honor and a joy to be with the many friends I have at Westminster and to join them in worship.

Tomorrow I will be doing something that I rarely do these days – I will be preaching a sermon utilizing a manuscript that is already written – not a verbatim transcript of what I plan to say but certainly more so than is usual for me. It seemed to me that is what this occasion called for, so that is what I am doing. However, I have also decided to include the manuscript for this sermon in this current blog post. Some of you will agree with the points I make, and I think I know many of you well enough to know that you will not agree with much that I have to say. That said – I still love you and I hope that you will find it possible to still love me as my words are honest and forthright and I am fully at peace with what I have to say. I invite your comments.

The Scripture text is John 20:19-29 – the lectionary text from the Gospels for the Sunday following Easter during each of the years of the lectionary cycle.

In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were locked in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Temple authorities. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Having said this, the savior showed them the marks of crucifixion. The disciples were filled with joy when they saw Jesus, who said to them again, “Peace be with you. As Abba God sent me, so I’m sending you.” After saying this, Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”

It happened that one of the Twelve, Thomas – nicknamed Didymus, or “Twin” – was absent when Jesus came. The other disciples kept telling him, “We’ve seen Jesus!” Thomas’ answer was, “I’ll never believe it without putting my finger in the nail marks and my hand into the spear wound.”

On the eighth day, the disciples were once more in the room, and this time Thomas was with them. Despite the locked doors, Jesus came and stood before them, saying, “Peace be with you.” Then to Thomas, Jesus said, “Take your finger and examine my hands. Put your hand into my side. Don’t persist in your unbelief, but believe!”

Thomas said in response, “My Savior and my God!” Jesus then said, “You’ve become a believer because you saw me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (The Inclusive Bible)

This Scripture – been my sermon text more than any other – my years as an associate – always preached on the Sunday after Easter – this text the Gospel in all years of the lectionary. Some refer to this Sunday as Low Sunday – many of us as associate pastor’s Sunday.

Each year – including today – I have made an effort to approach these familiar words anew to find new insight – fresh understandings.

This year my efforts are combined with reading what I believe was the last book written by Marcus Borg before his death – “Convictions: How I Learned What Matters Most.” In many ways it has been like reading my own story.

“Christian” and “American” name the cultural context in which I was born and in which I have lived my life. I continue to be both, and I am grateful for both parts of my inheritance. But being both raises a crucial question: What does it mean to be Christian and American today? To be Christian and to live in the richest and most powerful country in the world, often called “the American Empire,” and not just by critics but also by champions? And to be both in a time of a deeply divided American Christianity? . . . What might the things we can know about the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian past mean for Christians today? And what should they mean?

Finally – and what lesson is there for us in this familiar story of Thomas on this Sunday following Easter in Austin, Texas?

“The triad of memories, conversions, and convictions shapes all of our lives.”

Memories – always had an affinity with this passage because of my name – Thomas. My beginnings were among the Native American peoples in northeastern Oklahoma where my grandparents were missionary pastors. It was several years before I would begin to appreciate how unique and wonderful that was – being raised in a community where all of creation – including non-human – were considered relatives.

Conversions – the summer before my sixth grade year we moved from Oklahoma to Kansas. Found myself in an environment that was strange to me. The Methodist church we attended was one that Borg would refer to as “Conventional Christians” –  true of many in my generation – being involved in church was something you did – taught that a “belief in Jesus now for the sake of going to heaven in the future” – although I was not taught Biblical inerrancy – most of what I was taught would classify the congregation – in Borg’s classifications – as conservative rather than conventional. My “conversion” stage started earlier than many of my friends because of the seemingly progressive community into which I was born and spent my youngest years.

Like many people I was taught that Jesus is the way – according to the Scripture – the “only” way – which really means for many people that “our way is the only way.”

My first conversion could only be characterized as a move toward more conservative – but – my earlier teachings remained etched in my being – so every new teaching met with resistance of what I had been taught earlier – so from early junior high I was completely comfortable being a “doubting Thomas.”

Step by step my journey found me moving from conventional Christianity to – what Borg labels – uncertain Christianity. Then there were several times in my life when uncertain Christian almost became “former” Christian. Borg offers an important clarification – the only difference between “label” and “libel” is a single letter.

By the time I married Mary Helen and moved to Austin in May of 2001 I was well along my journey moving solidly in the direction of Progressive Christianity. However we were part of a congregation that would properly be described as Conventional with a significant number of members that were solidly Conservative and a smaller number that were on the edge of Progressive.

Again I found myself questioning myself and my faith – maybe I really should believe those orthodox things that I had already started to reject – it certainly would have made my life easier – but try as I might – I could not. My seminary education strengthened my progressive leanings and by the time I was ordained I was aware that the future would likely be filled with significant challenges as I tried to serve a congregation of people that I had come to love with integrity but with a theological understanding that was no longer authentic for me – and challenging it often was!

Fortunately, over my years of questioning, I was able to find some solace in some works of musical theatre that provided substantial peace for my mind. Fiddler On the Roof – basically helped me learn most of what I know about the Jewish faith tradition. Stephen Schwartz created two works that were extremely helpful to me – Children of Eden – act one relates the story of Adam and Eve and creation – act two the story of Noah, his family, the animals, and the flood. The other work by Stephen Schwartz – Godspell – offers a perfectly wonderful paraphrase of the life of Jesus as it is found in Matthew’s Gospel – told in current day vocabulary with wonderful songs and interesting characters – while being completely faithful to the text of Matthew.

And finally – The Cotton Patch Gospel – based on Clarence Jordan’s wonderful telling of the Gospels in the language of the south with superb music by Harry Chapin.

One of my favorite scenes tells the story of our scripture passage today – the story of Thomas.

The disciples were gathered in a room – Jesus came into the room – and they believed. The next time they saw Thomas they told him of the exciting event that they had witnessed together – but – Thomas needed to see for himself – so when they were gathered in the same securely locked room a week later – Thomas was with them – and the story tells of how Jesus came through the door – literally THROUGH the door – after showing Thomas what he needed to see for himself – Jesus sat with them and enjoyed a large piece of cherry pie and a cup of coffee.

This reading of the Thomas story keeps the spirit of what is written in the fourth Gospel but also makes it very difficult to believe that John’s writing is a literal reporting of an historic event.

Retirement – though earlier than anticipated – proved to be a gift. Four months following my retirement I was invited to join the staff of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church here in Austin as Director of Music Ministry.

I found myself able to fully embrace the Progressive Christianity which had over time become an authentic way for me.

Finally – and what lesson is there for us in this familiar story of Thomas on this Sunday following Easter in Austin, Texas? And during this time when American Christianity – including my own denomination – Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is deeply divided over issues of marriage, who should be ordained, and more . . . What might the things we can know about the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian past mean for us as American Christians today? And what should they mean?

At one point in my life I probably would have responded: It’s in the Bible so it is true. At another time my answer would have been something like: It’s in the Bible so it is true – but – that does not mean that it is an accurate account of historic events. At yet another time and place I may have responded that Jesus is the answer – what is the question. Certainly there were times where the only honest answer I would be able to give is: I don’t know.

Convictions – But now I approach this story with what Borg terms a “parabolic understanding” – a parable that teaches a true lesson even if the story is not a true historical account. The important thing for me is “what does this selection of scripture teach us today – and why is it important.”

None of us are able to say that we were present when and if Jesus literally met with the disciples. None of us know why Thomas was not present for the occasion of the first meeting – we don’t know how or if Jesus knew that Thomas would be present the second time – only in our imagination are we able to speak about how Jesus came through the locked door.

And it is not just this story – how do we know that there were 3 magi – that they were all men – that one of them was black. Can any of us speak with authority about the 2 figures dressed in white at the tomb – the Greek word refers to messengers – dressed in the manner that any of the recent converts to the faith may have been dressed – were they angels – the same kind that gathered in the sky at an earlier time singing: Glory to God in the highest – and peace to all ___________________ on earth.

If we insist that every word in the Bible is literally historically and scientifically true then we have a significant problem as early as the second chapter of Genesis.

Seven days, seven months, seven years, seven decades – what difference does it make.

At seminary we were taught that Karl Barth said: “Jesus loves me this I know because the Bible tells me so” – but me – the best I can offer is “Jesus loves me this I know because my mother told me that the Bible tells me so.”

The use of myths, metaphors, and parables do not depend on historical or scientific accuracy for truth. The Bible is not a book of history nor a scientific text – but that does not mean that it does not speak the truth.

For me that truth is at the end of the story – Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

We are going to sing a hymn text by Thomas Troeger in just a few minutes that includes there important words:

The vision of his skeptic mind was keen enough to make him blind

                   to any unexpected act too large for his small world of fact.

                May we, O God, by grace believe and thus the risen Christ receive,

                   whose raw imprinted palms reach out and beckoned Thomas from his doubt.

Amen and Amen