I. Introduction

As the 20th century became the 21st, the face of religion in the western world and the United States changed considerably. Mainline Protestant denominations like the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, the Lutheran Church and the United Church of Christ began to decline rapidly as evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, and fundamentalists grew. The United Methodist Church and other mainline sects decided to do various things in the hopes of regaining their lost numbers.

One idea in the UMC is the use of what is called “Gender Inclusive Language”, hereafter referred to as GIL. In the name of being more welcoming of all people, in this case women, the UMC decided around the 1980s to begin gender neutralizing all references to God and the overall Christian community. As a result, when one hears a Methodist minister speak or read literature from the UMC oftentimes they will see God no longer referred to with the terms “Him”, “He”, or “His.” Instead, a sentence like “God gave His only begotten Son” becomes “God gave God’s only begotten Son.”

In addition to sermons, the GIL policy also involves editing older hymns. For example, in the UMC hymnal today, “God of Our Fathers” is now “God of the Ages” and “Good Christian Men Rejoice” is now “Good Christians all Rejoice.” Lyrics have been altered as well, with lines like “Let men their songs employ” becoming “Let all their songs employ” and “And dark is His path on the wings of the storm” becoming “And dark is God’s path on the wings of the storm.”

UMC seminaries mandate the use of GIL, as papers must use this terminology when describing God. When reviewing applications for entering the ministry, UMC officials have been known to disqualify applicants who use masculine words to describe God.

Proponents of GIL have argued that it is more inclusive of other faith journeys, helping those who may have different ways of describing God feel comfortable. They say there are those who had bad experiences with male figures, like an abusive father or husband. The idea of referring to God in a male tense hurts those who had such experiences.

Though arguments for GIL usage are well intentioned, it is ultimately a flawed and theologically dangerous policy that is far more alienating that it could ever be inclusive. As shall be covered, there are a myriad of problems with GIL when it comes to its implementation in Christian faith and practice.

II. Jesus and the Bible

The first and probably greatest problem with GIL is how it treats Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible. As shown in the examples below, Jesus frequently referred to God in the masculine tense:

“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” --Matthew 5:16¹

“Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” --Luke 6:36

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” --John 3:16

Even in the UMC, where GIL is mandated, every Sunday the clergy and congregation pray as one a prayer that begins with the declaration “Our Father.” This has somehow escaped the GIL modifications, probably because its straight from the mouth of Christ.² Yet overall, GIL is seen as the superior way to address God. Here’s what some GIL proponents say:

“One mistake we made was trying to force change behaviorally like inclusive language without first changing the heart. If hearts are changed, action follows.”³

“Essentially inclusive language means we use language that recognizes one another’s made-in-God’s-image humanity rather than use words that are demeaning, insulting, excluding, stereotyping or trivializing of people on the basis of particular attributes or membership of a certain group.”⁴

Indirectly, these GIL proponents are saying that Jesus was “demeaning, insulting, excluding” and needed a change of heart. They are saying Jesus was wrong. As a denomination that professes to be part of Christianity, this is a very peculiar thing to believe. Yet what other conclusion can one reach if they are saying something Christ did should not be done?

GIL proponents may take a step back and say it is not Jesus who was wrong. Jesus did not utter masculine references, they may argue, but rather we read in the Bible the biased recordings of men bound to their specific time. In reality, its likely Jesus also used GIL. This argument might be more palatable than the “Jesus was wrong” conclusion, yet it is equally distressing for it concludes that we cannot trust the Bible. Yet another peculiar thing to believe if one claims to be Christian. If they want to assume that GIL is indeed better than using masculine references, it is a conclusion they must reach.

Many through the past decades have resorted to reconciling their ideas on gender inclusion and the gender specific Holy Bible. Translations like the TNIV have sought to gender neuter the Bible, so as to make the Good Book more acceptable to those opposed to masculine references. Yet this is also built upon the idea that we cannot trust the Bible, for few of these changes are consistent with a literal rendering of the Bible into English. In some instances they actually change the meaning of passages to the detriment of the Word of God.⁵ This is once again mankind (dare I use the term) deciding its reasoning is above God’s.

III. Efficacy

Scripture holds a level of leniency for questionable motives nevertheless leading to the spread of the Gospel. As Paul writes, if one is evangelizing for malevolent reasons and yet people still believe, then the person is doing good.⁶

Perchance there are members of the UMC who defend the use of GIL in this respect, for if the policy of gender neutralizing is in fact growing the church, then maybe it is beneficial. This remains to be seen, as the number of congregants nationally continues to fall. The decline of the mainline churches has not stopped, even as the UMC and other sects continue to implement the GIL policy with growing severity. As reported by the United Methodist News Service, in 2008 the UMC experienced a 1.08 percent drop in membership, the largest decline since the 1970s.⁷

Possibly these dropping membership numbers would occur even if the UMC had not adopted GIL. However, what cannot be denied is that GIL is not ebbing the flow of people out of the Methodist Church. If anything, its probably helping many conclude that the UMC has strayed too far away from a Gospel foundation and other venues would be better.

Despite claiming inclusion, GIL holds an element of exclusion. What message is the UMC sending earthly fathers when they say fatherhood is offensive and should not be considered a way to view how God acts towards His children? As with most sects, the UMC is majority female. So how does the UMC deal with the gender disparity? They censor masculine references to God and the Christian community of course. That’s a great way to include men who are desiring acceptance while searching for spiritual answers.

Going on the issue of supply and demand, one wonders how the UMC could even conclude that the reason why the denomination is in decline is because of masculine references being used. How many people surveyed in countless polls have listed God being described in the masculine tense as their reason for leaving? How many of the staunch atheists like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens list masculine references to God as being the reason they consider religion evil? How many objectivist or secular humanist organizations consider the wrongs of the church to include granting of male titles to the Deity?

Much is made by GIL proponents of the personal stories of those who had abusive or neglectful fathers. These people, proponents argue, will feel uncomfortable with God being described in a gender specific context. Yet there are also people who had abusive or neglectful fathers who view God as their True Father, the Heavenly Father who will never hurt them, never leave or forsake them, and who will always be with them. As the Psalmist declares, “A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, [is] God in his holy habitation.”⁸

This was not written with some intention of alienating, but rather its audience through the centuries until the present day would see it as a beautiful wonderful promise. When the UMC considers the title of fatherhood a negative title for God, they are alienating those throughout history who have taken solace in the idea of God being their Father.

IV. Alienation, Hymns, and the Slippery Slope

The theme of GIL is that of inclusiveness. However, like many entities in western society that use the I-word, GIL is quite alienating and exclusive. As aforementioned, its alienating to believers who receive solace in the idea that God is their Father. For any member of the UMC whose faith was developed through liturgy, prayers, and hymns that refer to God and the Christian community in the masculine tense, a policy that censors these is a policy that is inherently offensive to their spiritual well-being. Offending many to accommodate some.

GIL creates unnecessary borders between the UMC and other denominations and faith traditions. Most of Christendom, indeed most Methodist laity, frequently use masculine references to describe God. By saying that this is unacceptable the UMC hierarchy is putting a barrier of understanding between them and Christians who see God as Father and sing hymns like “Good Christian Men Rejoice” and “God of our Fathers.”

They also create unnecessary problems for hymn writers, who now can no longer use words like “He”, “His”, “men”, or “fathers” when writing hymns. This reduces the number of rhymes that can be applied and the number of themes a lyricist can draw upon. What is intriguing if not hypocritical of the UMC is that while masculine words are being censored feminine words remain. Plenty of hymns compare God to a loving mother and even after the censorship of the UMC’s Hymnal Revision Committee these terms remain. This even though there are probably people out there who had abusive mothers. Goes to show, GIL is selective in its sensitivity.

Then again, maybe in the future this perpetually unnecessary censorship will expand its words to include feminine references as well. Having already concluded that Jesus and the Bible were wrong in their usage of masculine terms, it should not be surprising that the UMC is already starting to censor other notable figures’ words as well.

In the Methodist devotional book Openings, for the January 15th entry the author Larry James Peacock wrote a reflection on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which included a quote from the civil rights leader. The quote reads in the book as follows:

“When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a great benign Power in the Universe whose name is God, and [God] is able to make a way out of no way, and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. This is our hope for becoming better men [and women].”⁹

The brackets were done by Peacock, not me. The quote originally read “there is a great benign Power in the Universe whose name is God, and he is able to make a way out of no way, and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. This is our hope for becoming better men.”¹⁰ However it was made to be “more inclusive” by the Methodist publication. That’s right, not even Dr. King was considered inclusive enough for the UMC. And as the UMC mandates that their clergy use gender neutral terms, one wonders how they deal with their own founder, John Wesley, who identified God in a sermon as “the Author of our being, the Father of angels and men.”¹¹

V. Conclusion

Despite the decreasing membership and the increasingly ridiculous application of the Gender Inclusive Language policy, the United Methodist Church hierarchy is unlikely to budge on the matter. The bishops of the UMC were largely brought up in the radical 1960s and 1970s were influenced accordingly. As far as they are concerned, they are doing the right thing and no one can tell them otherwise. It does not matter if Jesus described God as “Our Father”, much less the numerous prophets and saints who have done likewise in and out of the Holy Bible. The UMC will just change their words, changing history in the process.

This and other moral and spiritual compromises from the overall mainline Protestant denominations should invoke not invoke a sense of positive inclusion and diversity. Rather they should cautiously invoke the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who once remarked, “The price we are having to pay to-day in the shape of the collapse of the organized Church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a cost.”¹²

Sources:

1. All Scripture quotes taken from the Authorized Version aka King James Version of the Bible.

2. Matthew 6:9-13.

3. Dunlap-Berg, Barbara, “Gender-inclusive language challenges church”, UMNS http://bit.ly/bk8wfE, accessed February 2nd, AD 2011.

4. Coffing, Kim, “Inclusive Language…Again?”, The Flyer, Volume 41, Issue 6, p.6.

5. http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Exegetical/TNIV.htm, accessed February 2nd, AD 2011.

6. Philippians 1:16-18.

7. Gilbert, Kathy L., “Giving, membership decline in recession”, UMNS, March 8th, AD 2010. http://bit.ly/fQylFQ, accessed February 3rd, AD 2011

8. Psalm 68:5.

9. Peacock, Larry James, Openings: A Daybook of Saints, Psalms, and Prayer, Nashville: Upper Room Books, 2003, p.32.

10. James M. Washington (ed.), A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., HarperCollins, 1991, p.509.

11. http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/59/, accessed February 3rd, AD 2011.

12. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, The Cost of Discipleship (Revised ed.), New York: The MacMillan Company, 1963, p.58.