New Hymnal, Old Controversies
Sunday, March 01, 2009
A new United Methodist Hymnal is currently under development. A hymnal revision committee was approved at the General Conference in 2008, and if all goes as planned, a new hymn book will come up for approval at the General Conference of 2012.The hymnal is enormously influential in the life of the church, and so changes to it will be hotly contested by those who want to see particularly theological or political perspectives represented in it.
Controversy is already occurring, in fact. There's a Facebook group that's been set up to discuss various issues related to the new hymnal's development. Most of the questions that are asked are for informational purposes. But when the question turned to gender inclusive language for God, the discussion got heated.
I tend to think that most debates over God language do not take historic doctrine very seriously. Revisionists mostly tend to see God language as political and/or sociological, meaning that it is a product of time and place and should be adapted as often as needed to fit new situations. That kind of view doesn't look back into history much further than 1960. And that's a shame. It will be an even greater shame if the new hymnal waters down Trinitarian doctrine worse than the 1989 version did.
Here is a version of some comments I left on the discussion board about changing hymns and liturgies with each new edition of the hymnal:
When going about the process of altering historic hymns of the faith (or even contemporary ones), we need to take seriously our Trinitarian language for God. The persons of the Godhead have been revealed by as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - first in Scripture and then in definitive doctrinal form at Nicaea. This does not mean that God the Father is male, of course. But it does mean that we must use discipline in our language, and if Christian theological language/concepts do not agree with the political flavor du jour of society, then it is incumbent upon us to educate our people rather than descend into sloppiness in our theological grammar.
For instance, the Fatherhood of God is attested by Christ (e.g., Luke 10:21-22; John 10:29-30). The Son is the Son of the Father; when the Son became incarnate he was born to a mother - the Virgin Mary. Thus, attempts to rename God the Father as 'Mother' or as 'Parent' go directly against both the direct testimony of Scripture, the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead, and Calcedonian doctrine of the Incarnation. Moreover, attempts at non-gendered language (Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer) produce nothing but forms of the heresy of modalism.
Generally speaking, those who attempt to apply standards of the nouveau contextual theologies as a way to radically alter our God language do not take Trinitarian doctrine seriously. Words like 'justice' that are often thrown around to make revisionist arguments are used carelessly and speak more to the egalitarian aspirations of liberal democratic society than they do to our ecclesial existence. Justice as biblically-understood is a different, theological (rather than sociological) concept. It isn't that there's no overlap; of course there is at points. But to say that it is 'unjust' to women to refer to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is entirely non-biblical.
I hope the hymnal revision committee will take these points seriously. The advantage of revising a hymnal every 25 years is the possibility of including new and fresh hymns that speak to the exaltation of the triune God in creative ways. The disadvantage is the inevitable political pressure to conform to whatever the current political climate happens to be. I hope our revision committee will take the riches of the Christian tradition seriously - riches that are much deeper and more life-giving than the panicky impulses to appear politically correct vis-a-vis the secular intelligentsia of this country in the immediate present.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 5:00 PM
22 Comments:
Of course we will be distracted by some of these issues, but what about the overarching debate of a printed hymnal in a digital world?
That is a good question, Rev. Bill. I wonder if they will do something new technologically with this one, such as making it available so churches that use more digital media can make use of it in their worship services. It seems like they could do a digital version of it that would really enhance a more contemporary worship service (as opposed to the plain PowerPoint text that is often projected for both hymn lyrics and Eucharistic liturgies).
The bible was written by men.
The council at Nicea was done by men.
The council at Calcedon was done by men.
The hymns were mostly written by men.
Is it any wonder that we can point to history and tradition and say that gender inclusivity is a post-1960s development? Just because it reined for 1,960 years doesn't make it right.
I think it is a mistake to equate inclusive language with societal shifts or political fads, as if "it will pass when they realize that language for God in 400bc is still appropriate today." There are deeply theological and biblical arguments for inclusive imagery for God that aren't dismissed as easily as the flavor of the week.
Rev. Jeremy -
Please don't misunderstand me. I am very much in favor of drawing on the rich variety of biblical imagery for God. Even the Son himself can rightly be called a lion, a rock, a branch, a root, and 'like a hen'!
When talking about the Godhead as a whole we can also use a great deal of metaphorical imagery (and here such titles as Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer are very appropriate, so long as they are used to name the Godhead and not identify the persons of God individually as if they are proper names).
I would even consider myself in favor of going beyond biblical imagery to evoke metaphors for God, to a certain extent. And in this sense, using feminine imagery for God in contemporary hymnody can be done responsibly.
My point, both in the Facebook group and in this blog post, was about Trinitarian language for God. We find in Scripture that the triune God is made up of three distinct but mutually coinhering persons, and they are identified as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. As I mentioned previously, God the Father is not 'a male,' but he is the Father to the Son and is identified by the Son as such. Together with the Spirit, the Son exists from eternity with the Father. But the Son also has become incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and in this sense the Son has a human mother after his own human nature - she is the theotokos. The Son does not, however, have an eternal Mother and the first person of the Trinity cannot be properly identified as such.
As a sidenote, I would also suggest that we do not have an eternal Mother either. Theologically speaking, our Mother is the Holy Church. She is the one who nurtures us and shows us the way of salvation. And as constituent members of her, we are the bride who is being prepared for the Bridegroom, who is the Son!
So I am not denying the validity or propriety of using diverse metaphors for God. But speaking of the Godhead metaphorically and speaking the Trinity of Persons is two different matters entirely.
The only other comment I would make is to gently, as your colleague in ministry, suggest that your opening statements about this, that, and the other as written or done by "men" is not very helpful. It is the very Word of God that we find in the Holy Scriptures, and the kind of reductionist reading of it that attaches a value to it relative to the gender and/or social location of the purported authors is exactly the kind of non-theological, socio-cultural reading that the church should be trying to overcome.
Pax,
Andrew
Reinhard Huetter has some good things to say about appropriately using God language both as revealed and (in my paraphrase) poetically. You might chat with him about it, Andrew, though I'm sure you two are already on the same page on this.
I personally DO believe that the gender inclusive rampage is very much a fad. There's much to be said about exploring the full range of expression about God (though I wonder - can we have some apophatic hymns about God? Maybe we can just hum...) but, as you note, we can't ignore God-given revelation.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that that is precisely what some revisionists wish to do. Which isn't at all surprising; that's what they do. That's why they're "revisionists" (we obviously know better than that sexist St. Paul).
But you see, this isn't a battle over the hymnal. Like every other debate that strikes at the core United Methodist identity and orthodox confession of Jesus as Lord, this is a battle over the Bible.
But another commentor makes the most penetrating point: who gives a crap about hardbound books in a world of digital projection? Granted, it's still a small number of churches that use projection, but the numbers are quickly escalating. Better be digital...
Andrew,
Thank you for your graciousness and gentle correction as a colleague in ministry. In reply, I would affirm that all theology and theological statements are contextual and emerge from a social context. As we are reminded in the 2004 Book of Discipline, tradition is not sacrosanct.
More to the point, so we are clear, you are fine with metaphorical mothering imagery for God, but not to call God "Mother"?
Case study: The Faith We sing hymn title "Mothering God who gave me birth" is either:
(a) metaphorical and acceptable because God is "mothering" and that is a feature not a role, or
(b) not metaphorical and offensive because it is an impossible role to play in your understanding of the trinity.
I'm just seeing where the dividing line is between naming God as "mother" and identifying God as "Mother" (capital letters intentional).
Rev. Jeremy -
I apologize if any part of my last response came across as snarky. I did not mean it that way. I am genuinely troubled by the sarcasm and mean-spiritedness that abounds in the blogosphere. I believe it significantly inhibits our ability to engage in civil discourse. My comment to you was meant not as a correction but as a suggestion, which was the word I actually used, and I intended to communicate my respect to you as a fellow presbyter ecclesiae. We are handicapped in some of the basic tools of communication in a forum such as this, including the ability to gauge tone of voice and intent. It's a challenge to converse in such a defective form of communication, particularly since we are not in real community with one another. But please know that since last summer, I have made a conscious effort to try and moderate the conversation on this blog so that it is a welcoming and congenial place to share ideas and debate issues. Clearly, I have not yet found the right way to articulate that in my responses yet, but also know that all my comments are intended in a spirit of friendship and charity.
I, of course, affirm that we all speak out of a sitz im leben that consists of personal history/experience, gender, race, class, nationality, historical time period, etc. The authors of the original texts of the Bible were just as bound by their contexts as we are by ours. But what Exodus, or the Psalms, or Luke, or Revelation have that other texts (such as this blog) do not is that they are Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. They contain the word of God, and they jointly testify that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father. Thus, the move to level all theological statements with reference to their rootedness in time and space does not obtain. It does not account for revelation, which must be a central facet of any Christian's epistemology.
As to the second part of your response, I'm afraid that any attempt to answer what you are asking would largely involve a repetition of what I wrote in my last response. The question hinges on whether we are talking about the proper names of the personae trinitatis or whether we are using metaphorical evocations of the Godhead. The point that Casey Taylor makes in regards to Reinhard Huetter's distinction between revealed and poetical identifications of God may be a helpful way to frame the issue, although I have not spoken to Prof. Huetter about the matter and could not say for sure.
I think inclusive language for the Trinitarian God is essential for males to embrace. By constantly referencing God as Father, males are in a sense saying I am like God; mothers are not. This is not intentional, but it is the case. If we do not believe that, then why is there such resistance to call God mother? Could it be because we do not want to let our own egos die in order to allow others to identify with God as we males do?
Secondly, I think inclusive language is pivotal for the theological reason of God being Whole-ly other. When I refer to God as Father I am reminded that in a way I am like God. Which is true, I am made in God's image. But when I refer to God as Mother, it reminds me how I am not like God. Additionally, I will never know what it is like to be a mother, just as I will never know what it is like to be God.
I understand what you are getting at Andrew, however I believe it is more important for all of us to be reminded of the ways we are not only like God (i.e. Father) but also just as important, and if not more so, we need to be reminded just as often of the ways we are not like God (i.e. Mother).
Andrew, we are seeing again the limits of online communication: I didn't see your comment as snarky at all and my appreciation was genuine. If I can interpret, your concern was that I was reducing history to "men's" work instead of the work of the Spirit and your comment sought to pull me back from that. My comment in reply was that I would gladly come with you, but not as far as treating tradition as sacrosanct (referring more to the references to Calcedon and Nicea as tradition where social location is important). I hope our conversation is now more clear.
Sigh. Online communication is hazardous! :-)
To regroup, I get the sense that your concern is about changing the language of established hymns (ie. Father to Creator) moreso than including new hymns which offer feminine metaphorical imagery of God. Is that an appropriate statement? If not, can I ask you to turn to TFWS 2050, check out "Mothering God" and show me where it is challenging the trinitarian structure by applying "mothering" to all members of the trinity.
Jason, the weakness in your response as I see it is that it arises more out of Freud than it does out of anything in the Christian tradition. The idea that our God concepts are projections of our unconscious desires was certainly one of the major challenges to Christianity that came out of the late 19th century, but most theologians nowadays don't take it very seriously. (I heard Will Willimon humorously answer this challenge by suggesting that, if God were really a projection of our deepest desires for ourselves, then surely we would have gotten a different God than the one we find in Scripture.)
In addition to that, there are problems with your suggestion that identifying God in differently gendered terms will help us to better understand God's transcendence. The way the imago dei is understood differs somewhat depending on who you are reading, but it typically refers to creation in God's natural image (reason or understanding) and God's moral image (the will capable of being formed by divine love). What it does not refer to at all is our biological gender. And in that sense, your suggestion that calling God "father" or "mother" will either let me know how I am alike or different than God bespeaks a commitment to biological essentialism that I'm not sure you would support if pressed (i.e., the notion that we are "essentially" male or female). We are the creatio imaginis dei in a way that the rest of the creation is not, but that attribute of ours has nothing to do with our anatomical parts. If it did, then the rest of the gendered animal creation would also share in the imago dei, which it does not.
As a summary response to both Jason and Jeremy: The distinction to which I am referring is between names and metaphors. The names of the Trinitarian persons as revealed in Holy Scripture are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Metaphors for God are inherently poetic images that evoke different characteristics of God's nature. Thus, to say, "God as a mother nurtures and protects us," is qualitatively different than saying, "The first person of the Trinity is God the Mother." The former properly evokes certain aspects of God's providential care for us, while the latter is an improper misnaming of God the Father. Rev. Jeremy, my copy of TFWS is in my office, and so I will have to look up the hymn to which you are referring later.
this may have been mentioned already - i admittedly didn't read through everything before very slowly (for fear of blindness). but it truly changed things for me the first time i really noticed the words of the first creation story: "so God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." of course we argue over what the storytellers were trying to convey with this, but it certainly might be that God is both male and female...somehow.
in studying scripture in hebrew and greek, i'm constantly struck by the limitations of ALL human language to speak about God. there are things we just don't have the capacity to communicate with our feeble words. a "fish" swallowed jonah? really? that's the best you can do?
so i guess i'm just not as quick to try and limit language of the divine. i mean, i have my preferences, but for me to say God must be called this and not that-i just can't get that worked up about it.
Saint Paul - Please see my response immediately preceding your own for the dangers of attaching gender distinctions to the imago dei, and hence, applying biological gender identity to the doctrine of God. That road won't take you very far.
Thanks, Andrew, for your words of wisdom on these matters. I would also like to commend an essay by Brent Laytham, "God Does Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the book which he edited entitled, God does not... entertain, play "Matchmaker," hurry, demand blood, cure every illness. Laytham correctly notes: "the three persons of the Trinity do not act separately, as if one does the work of creatin, another does the work of redeemin, and finally the Holy Spirit comes along to finish the job. God's doing is far more integral than that. Whenever God does something, all three persons of the Trinity are doing it together precisely because God is these three persons doing what they do. god is not a team that takes turns, not a troupe that plays parts, and certainly not a committee of persons who act independently of one another. Rather, the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together doing all that God does."
This is an important part of understanding why modalism is an inadequate account of God's trinitarian nature.
Pastor Andrew,
I copied and pasted your blog post and emailed it to my mom. This was her reply:
"So true. In the Irish hymn 'Be Thou My Vision' (played at your Baptism), the words were changed from ”high king of heaven” to something else. All the words “king” were taken out of the hymn. “High King” is historic(early AD) in Irish history. Four kings of the four counties were elected and one was installed as the high king at a place in Ireland called the Hill of Tara. In the original hymn God is considered the High King of Heaven. The highest praise to God. The '89 hymn takes away all the historic meaning. I bet when they revised it they knew nothing of Irish history."
**************
I was baptized in a Reformed Church in America parish, which used a 1955 hymnal with the same traditional wording as the 1964 UMC hymnal. I'm 32 and joined the UMC in 1988. So I remember the 1964 UMC hymnal (purple one).
Dave
Hey Andrew,
Great post, I'll have some very detailed hymn-language analyses on my blog in the coming months.
I also like to point out that "Creator Redeemer Sustainer" is not an adequate substitution for the covenant Name revealed in Matthew 28:19 for 2 reasons:
1) as you point out it could lead to some pseudo-modalism (especially considering that all persons of the Trinity are active in Creation, Redemption, and Sustaining [see the Nicene Creed and the Early Fathers' comments on Ps. 33:6] and
2) the covenant Name describes first and foremost the relations among the three Hypostaseis within the Godhead, whereas Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer highlights the whole Godhead's relation to us creatures. The one speaks of who God is in the Perichoresis, the other speaks to what God does for us. That elevating the second above the first is fraught with problems should be obvious.
While it has its faults, I think the current UM hymnal is one of the best worship-books I have run across in any denomination.
I was really disappointed at the logic of some of the arguments for a new one, because I believe it misunderstood the "top-40" nature of much contemporary praise music. Unless we plan to put out a new supplement every year, there doesn't seem much point in trying to use a printed resource to try to keep up.
Daniel -
Thanks for those thoughts. I look forward to reading your thoughts on hymn-language analysis.
As to your citation on Matthew 28 and the instruction by Jesus to baptize in the name of the triune God, I would suggest that this is one perfect instance where language functions in crucially important ways. A baptism in a name other than that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a proper baptism at all and would have to be re-done. It does not bar the person from saving relationship with God, of course (cf. the "baptism by desire") but neither is it an actual instance of the sacrament of baptism as handed down to us from the early church. And this is the case because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God's actual name (not because those words describe various culturally-conditioned attributes of God).
Your second point about the perichoretic relations between the personae trinitatis is important as well, and it is here that we often go astray on issues such as this. With the Enlightenment's turn inward on ourselves, we now feel the need to make everything about us. That's a sign of the narcissistic age in which we live. And it leads us to want to name God in ways that we 'feel' will benefit our own views of ourselves. The revealed name of God flies in the face of that and serves as a corrective to the overly-therapeutic tendencies of the culture.
Pax,
Andrew
Andrew,
I tried leaving this basic comment earlier, but it does not seem to have gone through for some reason.
You write about the name of God in one of your own comments:
"Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God's actual name."
"The revealed name of God flies in the face of that [narcissism] and serves as a corrective to the overly-therapeutic tendencies of the culture."
How do you justify a statement that God's name is Father, Son and Holy Spirit when He names himself "I am that I am" ?
Larry,
I don't see how the two revelations are at odds with one another. The theophany on Mt. Horeb in Exodus 3 is certainly an example of the revealed identity of God. And in the context of Moses' doubts about his mission, it seems geared to arrest Moses' desire to carry the name (and power) of some kind of tribal deity back to the Hebrews. He isn't the god of Horeb, or the god of the desert, or the god of the Nile. He is Who He is, which is another way of saying that he is the Lord of Creation. And this is an identity that, once revealed to the Hebrews through Moses, becomes decisive in their formation as a people.
But none of that contradicts the revelation of God in Jesus Christ that we find attested throughout the gospels. The baptismal commission in Matthew 28 teaches that we enter into the very body of Christ via baptism in the triune name. And the various other passages in the New Testament pointing to the Trinitarian nature of God serve as the Scriptural basis for the doctrinal formula that finds its mature expression in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
All that is to say that God's revelation to us is a historically contingent reality, which has happened in time and cannot be known apart from the witnesses to it as given us in God's holy Word. As the opening passage of the book of Hebrews notes, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe" (Hebrews 1:1-2).
- AT
Being female, and clergy, I guess I should be in angst over this issue of being overlooked and made to feel like a lesser being than men via the Trinitarian language. However, I just can’t see it that way. A rose is a rose… God is God, no matter how you refer to Him. Our human attempts to define and redefine Him will never change who He is. Yes, God mothers us and puts us under his wing, but He is revealed in such a variety of ways (Rock, Shepherd…), providing pictures that allow many people many ways to understand and connect to Him. That said, I think that the Trinitarian language has been/is there for a purpose, which others have already eloquently stated here. I take comfort in the ancient connection to my faith and the saints who have called upon “Father” God.
If I were a man, would the current Trinitarian language make me aspire to a closer relationship with God, via gender identification? Does this current language keep me from identifying with God the same way men do? I just don’t feel hindered by the boundaries that the language supposedly provides.
I had no clue that I was supposed to feel bad about the “maleness” of God until I heard about these issues circa 1989, before I even answered my call to ministry. As a musician, I was disturbed about the revisions that were made (and have been caught singing the wrong “new” words that had already been committed to memory and heart). Yet I understood the reason some were calling for change and the hurts that were being addressed. But even so it seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Then, I was divorced and raising a young daughter, whose earthly father was a sore spot in her life at the time. Did she feel excluded from a relationship with God because we didn’t recognize the Trinity to be “Mother, Son, and Spirit”? Not in the least, and it has been discussed throughout our years together.
I am not offended by the dialog that this brings about, but I am troubled by the general understanding that women are harmed or kept down by this age old language, which brings me comfort and helps me connect to God, who is neither male nor female, but the great “I am”.
Thank you for a great column.
[NOTE: The following question is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but does illustrate a point.]
So with this "inclusive language" are we no longer to pray "Our Father, who is in heaven..."?
How sad that the author of this article views God as primarily male in nature. Although clearly Jesus chose a male body to incarnate in (probably figured that in that time in history it would provide more respect and room to be heard) but thinking of either Creator God or the Holy Spirit as male, seems so small-minded to me- I never understood why people try to genderize-God! I wish our English language had a pronoun for a diety so gender wasn't forced into it (I guess this is why many churches now use "Spirit", "Creator", etc..). The original version of the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic is beautiful and doesn't include any gender-references to God.
Amy -
Thank you for your comment. I do not regard God as primarily male in nature, though. One of the main reasons I posted on God-language and the new hymnal project (which has since been indefinitely put on hold) was to argue that the Trinitarian name of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - does not refer to biological gender at all. As to the possibility of using Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, etc., language, I would refer you to the conversation that took place within the comment string.
Thanks,
Andrew
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home