Rector’s Note Re: Expansive Language
Dear Redeemer,
Welcome to Fall!
As we turn to the new program year, Mtr. Emily and I are planning on sharing thoughts more regularly with the parish through the weekly e-newsletter.
This week, I’ll be sharing about the decision I made earlier this summer (after conversation with the Worship Committee) for us to use approved expanded language in our services of Holy Eucharist when we use the Book of Common Prayer. Use of this more expansive language was approved by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2018 and is meant to expand the ways in which we refer to God.
Generally speaking, the changes replace some of the masculine language for God with gender-neutral language, and occasionally replace the word “Lord” with other appellations for God. This chart, which I shared with the Worship Committee as part of our conversation, shows some of the changes; the full text of the 2018 expansive language prayers can be found on the website of the Episcopal Church’s Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music.
The 2018 changes are not intended to erase the more traditional language, but, rather, to add to it language that allows for broader expression of who worshippers understand God to be by allowing us to expand the language we use to describe, address and name God.
For me, using more expansive language is a reminder that God’s love, grace, and glory are broader than we could ever describe. To be able to address God with a variety of terms invites us to continue to expand our understanding of who God is, and allows for a broader expression of God’s presence in the world and in our lives.
By intentionally expanding beyond only masculine language, we also acknowledge our changing understanding of gender and address the harmful legacy of sexism in our tradition.
Using masculine language is an appropriate way to refer to God. But using only masculine language is limiting. Doing so – without ever using any other language – can imply that masculine language is the only appropriate language for God, imputing a superiority to masculine language that risks imputing a superiority to the male gender. This, in turn, risks perpetuating and conveying an acceptance of the often limited role that women have historically been given in the church.
Our evolving understanding of gender also calls into question the use of only binary language for God. To proclaim with integrity our belief that every person is made in the image of God is to proclaim that all genders are made in the image of God. To then limit ourselves to only masculine language in describing God undercuts this assertion.
Some might ask why these reasons for adding gender-neutral language to our worship do not compel us also to add feminine pronouns to the text. There are some congregations where this is the practice. For me, however, our commitment to sharing common worship, and my understanding of the commitment I made in my ordination vows to uphold the liturgy of the Episcopal Church mean that, for our primary Sunday worship service, I would do so only with the agreement of the broader church and/or the explicit permission of our Bishop, as well as more conversation within our community. At this point, the texts approved in 2018 allow for us to take an additive step towards broadening our expression; as the conversations around how we worship continue, we will consider and discuss other additions should others be approved by the national church or our Bishop.
Language matters, and the language we use in worship matters because we are using it to try to convey – to the best of our human abilities – our longing for, trust in, and relationship with our God. In our own tradition, the shared language we use in communal prayer connects us to Christians around the world and across generations.
At the same time, language is limited, and language changes. The meanings, nuances, and impact of words change as the human experience changes, and as contemporary humans hold evolving understanding of what certain words convey. As we work to understand the role our faith played in colonization and slavery, for example, are there times when we need to re-assess our use of lightness and darkness to convey good and evil? Or the use of words like subjugation or dominion? Conversations about the language we use in prayer continue in the broader church, and my own (albeit limited) sense of that work is that it is being done with care and intentionality. The website for the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music (linked above) has more information about such conversation, including links to the latest guidelines in use for exploring language and liturgy and its evolution.
I welcome your thoughts on the language we use in our communal worship, and would welcome conversation about language that you find meaningful as you address or express your relationship with God.
In Christ’s peace,
Megan+