Up until the last 30 years or so, exclusive language had been commonplace. Humankind was referred to as mankind, ‘man’ was understood to include women and children as well as men and the language of liturgy commonly referred to ‘fellow men’ and ‘all men’ when its meaning was ‘everyone’. As preachers and worship leaders we have been directed by Conference to use inclusive language in worship, yet still we hear ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ coming from the pulpit.  It is not ‘only a word’ but a whole way of thinking that needs to change.

Language is dynamic and the previously inclusive meaning of ‘man’ is increasingly heard as exclusive. The argument that words such as ‘man’ have two distinct meanings, that of male people and that of human beings in general, misses the point. The underlying assumption is that male is the norm. If we continually use exclusive male language it can reinforce the idea that the female is somehow inferior to the male, which negates her full humanity.

The language we use has many hidden meanings and signals. Language not only expresses our feelings and attitudes, it can shape them too. Those who use inclusive language are not simply responding to a trend of political correctness, but rather to what they realize is a flaw in both thinking and theology which has distorted the Gospel message of equality before God. The Christian conviction that women and men are both made in the image of God leads theologians to question the largely male language used to describe God. We need to strike a balance by using female imagery if we are not to perpetuate the distortion. Female imagery of God enriches rather than replaces the male imagery, giving a fuller, more adequate and balanced picture which reinforces the conviction that both male and female were created equally in the image of God. 

Several years ago a Methodist Conference Paper on the subject said:-

“All human words are inadequate to speak of the unfathomable richness of God. They are but images that point to, whilst never capturing completely, the full truth of God. We need a variety of images which together give us a balanced picture. Some are indeed more significant than others, but those drawn from the human male need to be complemented by those drawn from the human female – as well as from other aspects of God’s creation…  If the use of female imagery is disallowed we are in effect saying that God may in principle be imaged in terms of every aspect of creation – except the human female; this position we believe to be intolerable.” 

The traditional picture is of God the Father who sends His Son, foretold by mostly male patriarchs and prophets and who is served by a priesthood which, in even the most emancipated churches, is still largely male. Thus the church perpetuates patriarchy in its practice and in so doing distorts the image of God which it presents to the world.

The Biblical writers were searching always for more images to convey the infinite richness of God, knowing that all human concepts are inadequate. The Biblical material contains a wide range of images for God and every generation needs to be involved in the same search for wider, complementary and more adequate images to express God’s self-revelation. If this generation recognises a different way of expressing God in non-patriarchal terms through female images, it is following in a Biblical tradition. 

Such changes offer a chance to dispose of the accumulated accretions of the ages which now serve only to hide God, and to return, repentant, to Gospel values and the radical Christianity of the early church as it emerged in the first century. The example of Jesus, which was revered by the first Christians, overturned the establishment, with its hierarchies and taboos and included women as equals. 

Beyond Inclusive Language
Rosemary Radford Ruether asks why the doctrine of Christ, which should be ultimately inclusive, has been used to exclude women. She points to a combination of patriarchal culture and too literal patristic interpretation of scripture through the ages as denying the universality of the early church. Women could not image God:

“Most of the Church Fathers concluded that it was the male who possessed the image of God normatively, whereas women in themselves did not possess the image of God, but rather were the image of the body, or lower creation, over which man was given dominion.”

The early church fathers defined much of Christian doctrine. Most of them, including Augustine, concluded that the male was the norm and that women could only be redeemed through their husbands. Aquinas also concluded that the maleness of Christ was necessary and not simply historical, because only the male demonstrates the perfection of the human being. The female can be subsumed into generic humanity only through the perfect male (Jesus).  By contrast, Gregory of Nyssa concluded that God was neither male nor female and read the Genesis text of  ‘the image of God’ as being inclusive.

Science has shown that both male and female have equal roles in reproduction, contrary to the earlier belief that the woman was simply the vessel in which the male creative act was accomplished. If we can conceive of an egalitarian embodiment based on reproduction as we now understand it, then patriarchy can be named as a distortion and the incarnation acquires a whole new dimension.

Academic scholarship, once monopolised by men, is seen by some women, for example Elizabeth Fiorenza, as alienating women from their own experience and insight:

“Feminist scholarship unveils the patriarchal functions of the intellectual and scientific frameworks generated and perpetuated by male-centred scholarship that makes women invisible or peripheral in what we know about the world, human life, and cultural or religious history. Placing women’s experience and subjectivity at the centre of intellectual enquiry has challenged the theoretical frameworks of all academic disciplines.”

If the man is the head, the centre of reason and location of the voice, then he has forgotten that he is fully defined by the body, which includes the heart, the centre of affection and source of life. To proclaim that God is love, and at the same time to exclude women’s voices, is an extraordinary act of self-denial.

The issue of language has been taken up most directly and strongly by the feminist movement. This and other radical movements confront stereotypes and offer challenging new interpretations of Biblical material, which in turn show us new facets of the revelation and nature of the God we worship. Alone these movements are powerful, together their effect is multiplied - for example, a combination of womanist and liberation theology invites us to see an aspect of God in the experience of a peasant woman of Mexico whose home has been destroyed by a mud slide, as she finds a new way of working with her environment, creating a home out of nothing, order out of chaos.

Diane Coleman is a Local Preacher in the Otley & Aireborough Circuit and warden of Norwood Methodist Retreat Centre.