Why Use Inclusive Language?

Part 1: Talking about People

(Part 2: Talking about God)

Inclusive Language Guidelines of the
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches

Anyone who has been around Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) for any period of time will undoubtedly notice that MCC strives to be inclusive in its language -- that is, not limiting God or human beings to one gender, one race, or any other human category.

Those who have been around MCC for a while and have the occasion to visit a church of a different denomination, such as for a family visit, wedding, or funeral, often have the experience of feeling slapped in the face with all the male imagery still used in that church, with God always being referred to as "He" and "Father," and much use of "man," "mankind," "sons," "brothers," etc.

Have you had that experience?

A common testimony of MCC members is that when they first came to MCC, they had a teeny-tiny God, and that God has grown and grown. It is not only our conceptions of God that expand, however, but also our understanding of ourselves, our understanding of other people, and our understanding of what the church is. To be spiritually growing and maturing, our image and understanding of God and ourselves should always be expanding. We need to leave behind our limited, inadequate "gods" and embrace the one true God, who is much more than we could ever imagine. To express our expanding understanding of God and ourselves, our words need to start catching up.

This is where inclusive language comes in.

The denomination of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) has been struggling for most of our history with how to be inclusive in our language, our attitudes, and our actions.

As far back as 1973, UFMCC Bylaws were amended so that neither God nor church leaders would be referred to with only male pronouns. At the 1974 and 1976 UFMCC General Conferences, strong stands were made for inclusive, non-sexist language in church documents, publications, Bylaws, Statement of Faith, and worship. This culminated in 1981 with the adoption of guidelines for using inclusive language in church life and worship and the amendment of the wording of the UFMCC Statement of Faith according to these guidelines.

Inclusive language is not an issue that is ever resolved once and for all, however. New people are always being integrated into our churches, and they may or may not come with an inclusive understanding of God and humanity. Also, MCC is not alone in its consideration of these issues. Nearly every mainline Protestant denomination, Roman Catholics and many other Christian churches have serious dialogue about inclusive language. Moreover, UFMCC as a denomination and as local churches are continually growing in understanding what it means to be inclusive. It is an ongoing process.

Generally speaking, the issue of using inclusive language for human beings is much easier to understand and implement than the issue of inclusive language for God. So we will deal with people-language first, and then move to God-language.

PART 1: TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE

Why be inclusive in our language?

It is a matter of justice to include people rather than exclude them. It is also a matter of following Jesus, that is, paying attention to Christ Jesus as our teacher and guide. Jesus saw his mission as inviting people into an intimate, trusting relationship with God. He strove to include people in God's circle of love, not to exclude. The following passage from Mark's Gospel records a dramatic example of this:

MARK 11:15-18

When they arrived in Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves, and he would not allow anyone to use the temple court as a thoroughfare for carrying goods. Then Jesus taught them, saying, "Does not Scripture say: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples? But you have turned it into a den of robbers! The chief priests and the scribes heard this and began looking for a way to do away with Jesus. They were afraid of him because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching."₍₁₎

The story of Jesus' cleansing of the temple is often used to illustrate that it is okay to get angry if it is a righteous anger. This point may have some validity but it is not the primary issue at stake here. This story has also been used to put down Judaism and Jewish worship practices. That is a misreading of Jesus and what he did here.

Remember that Jesus was Jewish himself and engaged in Jewish worship on a regular basis. What this story of the cleansing of the temple is about is the abuse of religion to benefit a few and exclude others. First-century Judaism has not been the only religion to have institutions and individuals guilty of this. Christianity has a sorry record in this regard too. All religious institutions and leaders need to be held accountable.

To understand this Gospel story, we must ask ourselves: why were there people selling and buying in the Temple courtyard? And who were these money-changers? Keep in mind that worship in the temple was essentially sacrificial worship. Animals such as goats, sheep, and doves were offered to God in burnt sacrifices. Because the sacrificial animals and birds had to be top quality, it would not do to just bring some from home, especially if one had to travel any distance to get to Jerusalem. So there were animals and birds just perfect for sacrifices for sale in the temple courtyard. This was all very convenient. In addition, the priestly aristocracy which ran the temple could make a profit on the sale of sacrificial birds and animals.

The money-changers were needed because there were so many different monetary systems in the surrounding areas where Jewish people lived, and only one kind of silver coin could be offered in the Temple. So for a fee the money-changers would give worshipers the right kind of coins in exchange for whatever kind of money they had. All of this was legitimate business to enable the kind of sacrificial worship done in the temple. Jesus never challenged that kind of worship, but he was upset that this religious commercial business was being done in the temple court.

This outer court of the temple was called the Court of the Gentiles. Inside that was the Court of Women where Jewish women could go to pray. Inside that was the Court of Israel where only Jewish men could go to pray, and inside that was the Holy of Holies where only the priests could go. This was a very hierarchical system with progressive exclusivism. The outer court, the Court of the Gentiles, was the only area in the temple complex where Gentiles or non-Jews could come to worship the Hebrew God. Any non-Jews who felt drawn to the Jewish religion or God could come to this court, but no further. It was in this outer court that all the buying and selling was going on. So in effect there was no place for Gentiles to come to worship God.

Note what Jesus says after he drives out the merchants, overturns the tables of the money-changers, and prohibits anyone from using the temple courtyard as a shortcut for carrying goods from one part of the city to another part.

This is what he says, "Does not Scripture say (or Is it not written) that my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples, for all the nations?" Here Jesus is quoting a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures, from the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 56. This is a prophecy that says that those who have been excluded from the original Hebrew covenant will be included by God.

Let's look at this prophecy itself:

ISAIAH 56:1-8

Thus says the Living God: "Keep justice, and do what is right, for my deliverance is close at hand, and my saving justice will soon be revealed. Blessed is anyone who does this, anyone who holds it fast, who observes the Sabbath, not profaning it." The foreigners who have joined themselves to God should not say, "God will surely exclude us from God's people." And the eunuch should not say, "I am nothing but a barren tree." For thus says the Living God: "To the eunuchs who observe my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, to them I will give in my house and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name, a name which shall not be forgotten. And the foreigners who join themselves to me, to minister to me, to love my name, and to be my servants, all who observe the Sabbath and do not profane it, and who hold fast to my covenant, these I will bring to my holy mountain, and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar. For my house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Thus says the Sovereign God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather in yet others besides those already gathered."₍₂₎

In this prophecy God promises to give to eunuchs and foreigners a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters. Those who have been excluded for not fitting the sexual norm and for reason of race or nationality are now included by God. Jesus draws attention to this prophecy as he clears the temple area of religious abuse and exclusivism.

Other examples of Jesus being inclusive, rather than exclusive, are interacting with Samaritans (considered "half-breed" Jews) and with non-Jews in his travels; dialoguing with women both in public and in private; including women in the band of followers who accompanied him; and using paired images or parables, one male and one female.

For instance, in Luke 15:3-10 we find Jesus comparing God's searching love for us to a man looking for a lost sheep and a woman looking for a lost coin. In Luke 13:18-21, Jesus presents two images of the Kingdom or Dominion of God, one drawn from male experience and one drawn from female experience. In Mark 3: 31-35, Jesus is depicted as turning a situation around to be inclusive of his female disciples ("sister") as well as his male disciples ("brother").

So let's follow Jesus' example. Let's be inclusive of other people in our speech and in our actions.

As we practice using inclusive language, it becomes more natural for us. As inclusivity becomes part of our make-up and the way we think, we start to see that inclusive language means more than non-sexist language. If we really want to be an inclusive Christian community, then we must be careful not to exclude anyone merely because of the words we use. This means persons of different races, nationalities, age, abilities, whatever.

For example, the home church of this author (MCC Hartford, Connecticut) concludes every Sunday worship service with the song, "Let There Be Peace On Earth". In this song, the words are sung "Let us go with each other in perfect harmony," rather than the original wording of "Let us walk with each other..." This all stems from a former member of the congregation who used a wheelchair. This man told the others in the congregation that he could not walk with them but that he could go with them. There are other ways we could be more sensitive to those differently-abled than we are, such as not using the imagery of blindness and deafness as spiritual insults or put-downs.

Racist language must never cross our tongues. Some of it is easy to spot: such as identifying white with goodness, purity, and God; identifying black with evil, death, and the demonic. Some may think that this is getting a little picky, and that these are just symbolic colors. But every time we use white and black in this symbolic way, we are perpetuating the dangerous myth that black is bad, that white is better than black.

Another inclusive language issue dealing with race is how we use the images of light and darkness. The issue of skin pigmentation is, of course, different from that of illumination or lack thereof. But Western society because of its racism has strongly interwoven the two. Light and dark images have gotten mixed up with racial prejudices. Now the image of light is too powerful and pervasive in Christianity and other religions to leave behind, but the racist connection can be broken by substituting the concepts of "gloom" and "shadows" for "darkness."

Most of the controversy in the last twenty years over inclusive language in both church and society has been over sexism. There does seem to be a growing consensus in Western culture that language should be non-sexist when referring to human beings.

It is easy to understand that words like "man" and "mankind," when used to denote all people or human beings in general, clearly leave out women from the human race. It is sexist in that it takes the male half of the human race and holds that forth as normative humanity, ignoring the experience of women. It is thus more accurate and more sensitive to say "people," "humankind," "men and women." It is easy to change "brothers" (or "brethren") to "brothers and sisters" when both males and females are being referred to. Likewise "sons" can easily be changed to "sons and daughters" or "children" or "heirs," depending on the context.

The pronouns "he," "him," and "his" are male pronouns and should not be used to designate either females or people in general. The indefinite singular ("one") or the indefinite plural ("they" or "those") can be used. For example, instead of saying, "He who comes to me shall not hunger," the inclusive rendering would be "They who come to me shall not hunger." This does not change the meaning and in fact it more accurately expresses Jesus' intent in that it includes everyone in the invitation, not just men.

The use of inclusive language for human beings is a relatively simple matter and can be easily implemented. Using inclusive language does not mean making everything feminine that is now masculine. Rather it is using words appropriate to the subject being talked about. If one is talking about men, use masculine pronouns. If one is talking about women, use female pronouns. If one is talking about both men and women, use both pronouns. Or if speaking about people in general or an unspecified person, use general pronouns, like "one," "one's," "they," "them," "their," "those."

Inclusive language has sometimes been ridiculed because of the overuse of the ending "-person" to replace the familiar "-man" endings in words like "chairman" and "policeman." We must be imaginative and creative, just as present-day society is being very creative in its language about occupations. Instead of policeman, it is not police person, but police officer. Instead of fireman, it is not fire person, but fire fighter. Mailmen are now mail carriers, not mail persons. Insurance men are now insurance agents. Linemen are now telephone line repairers. Jobs should be properly named by the work performed, not by the gender of the one doing it.

Similarly, Christians need to be imaginative and creative in their language. When we come across a word like "fisherman" in a Biblical text, a rendering of "fisher persons" sounds ridiculous. A simple "fishers" is fine, or a more quaint term like "fisher folk."

There is no reason to add "feminine" endings on words when they are ascribed to women, like "prophetess," "priestess," or "deaconess." The "-ess" ending can be sexist in itself in that it is often experienced as diminutive, signifying something less than the "real" thing. The Hebrew Scriptures refers to men prophets and women prophets; the same Hebrew word is used for both. There is no such word "prophetess." The New Testament churches had men deacons and women deacons; the same Greek word is used for both. There was no such word "deaconess" until hundreds of years later.

By being careful to use inclusive language for human beings, we expand our grasp of what it means to be fully human. No longer is our understanding limited to what is male, white, able-bodied, etc. The more of the variety of the human race that we include in our understanding of "humankind," the richer and the more accurate is our understanding.

Jesus came to include people in God's circle of love, and we who minister in Jesus' name today must do the same.

This ministry of inclusion can be illustrated in a story from Poland in the post-World War I era. There was a Quaker nurse working in Poland at that time, and when she died there was a question as to what to do with the body. In that heavily Roman Catholic country, the only cemetery in the area was Catholic. Since the nurse was Quaker, she could not be buried there. Finally, after much discussion, the church officials decided to bury her just outside the cemetery fence. During the night the peasants of that village came and moved the fence.

That is our ministry: moving fences to include people, removing barriers that divide and keep us apart, inviting everyone to join in God's circle of love with our words and our actions.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

(1) In what sense is inclusive language for people a matter of justice and sensitivity for you?

(2) In what sense is inclusive language for people a matter of "following Jesus" for you?

(3) In your language about people, what will you personally do to stop making male terminology the norm for what it means to be human? How will you more intentionally include women?

(4) What will you personally do in your language to stop reinforcing the myth that white is better than black, and that dark is evil? How will you more intentionally include persons of different skin color, race or ethnicity than yourself?

(5) What will you personally do in your language to stop using blindness, deafness, and mental disability as put-downs or insults? How will you more intentionally include persons of different physical and mental abilities?

FOOTNOTES

(1) Mark 11: 15-18. The wording presented is a translation done by Rev. Pulling from the Greek into contemporary and inclusive American English.

(2) Isaiah 56: 1-8. The wording presented is a rendering done by Rev. Pulling into contemporary and inclusive American English utilizing several contemporary English translations.

© Copyright 1999 UFMCC

Part 2: Talking about God

Contact us for more information:
UFMCC Director of Clergy Development
UFMCC Director of Communications
8704 Santa Monica Blvd., 2nd Floor
West Hollywood, CA 90069

Phone: 310-360-8640    Fax: 310-360-8680     E-Mail: ufmcchq@aol.com

Visit the UFMCC web site.