Apr 23 2008
Although in yesterday’s post I deliberately (for the sake of concentrating on one point at a time) bracketed out the gendered language of the song “Father God…”. I was not at all surprised that the women commenting on it nonetheless zeroed straight in on the phrase “I am your son, I am adopted in your family”.
Most of the web discussions I’ve come across about gendered language seem to focus on Bible translation. While discussion of gendered language in liturgy and song covers much of the same ground, it is somewhat different in the immediacy of its in-(or ex-)clusiveness. That is, hearing the scriptures say: “so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir, by God’s own act” (Gal 4:7 NJB) is different from singing as one’s own phrase “I am your son”.
As a question of translation, there are serious interpretative judgements to be made. The overall context of Galatians suggests that Paul saw this as an inclusive use of “son”, so it is quite reasonable to do as the NRSV does and translate as “child”. Equally, because the language is dealing with concepts of relationships as they were conceived in a very particular culture, and the metaphor of inheritance in that culture, one could make a case for maintaining the strong point inherent in describing women as “sons” at that time and in that text. Either way, in reading and hearing the scriptures, we are more aware that they are ancient writings in need of translation and interpretation.
It is, I think, different in the language of prayer and worship. Surely the whole point is that we need to learn ways of speaking to God out of our lives and our culture, and not simply put on the linguistic dress of a past age. I have got used to the fact that I say words that would sound hopelessly sexist today when I’m using the 1662 BCP. (I’d rather not use it all, but am not quite brave, powerful or autocratic enough to ban it completely.) But I am aware that in using it I am drawing on the linguistic and theological mindset of past centuries. But contemporary English is significantly different. Faced with a particularly stubborn congregation who didn’t see the point of changing our liturgical language, I invited my “fellow men” to stand. The men stood, the women remained seated. I asked them how it was possible for them to go on insisting that in the phrase “sinned against you and our fellow men” they really meant women as well.
Older hymns and prayers can often be adapted. Sometimes one is faced with the decision whether a hymn will lose its integrity or meaning if so adapted. Then we must ask whether we sing it as a period piece, or cease using it entirely. But there should be no excuse for contemporary songs and prayers being so full of inappropriately and outmodedly gendered language that people feel unable to use them. Ironically some of the more egregious offenders are more recent (the last half-century) where liturgy and worship has taken a turn towards the human, our world and our relationship to God. Older material focussed much more on the praises of God, and less on human feeling and attitude. Consequently it avoided many of these problems.
Our so-called worship songs might generally benefit from more of a focus on God and less on “God and me” feelings. This is one specific area where they might benefit most strongly. But the more a song presents itself as contemporary, the more the patriarchal linguistic associations of past phrases will stand out like a sore thumb, and the same words that were unexceptional in the poetry and prose of past centuries, will sound exceptional and excluding.