Enforcing inclusive God-language An analysis by Robert P. Mills The Presbyterian Layman Monday, May 17, 1999 One of the most far-reaching proposals coming to the 1999 General Assembly would require Presbyterian worship leaders to use inclusive language for God. Overture 99-24 from Western New York Presbytery would amend W-1.2006b of the Book of Order to read, “In its worship the church shall use language about God which is intentionally as diverse and varied as the Bible and our theological traditions.” The mandatory “shall” coupled with the phrase “our theological traditions” (note the plural) is the linchpin of this legislation, for one essential tenet of radical feminism’s theological tradition is the imposition of strict controls on the language Christians use to speak about God. What better means to that end than constitutional restrictions on what ministers may or may not say from the pulpit? If Overture 99-24 is adopted, it would make it possible for charges to be filed against a minister who baptized “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Similarly, an elder leading worship who began the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father” would be liable to disciplinary action. The overture does not specify penalties for such violations. However, punishments for Book of Order violations range up to “removal from office,” which is described as “the highest degree of censure” (D-12.0105). Overture advocates might argue that references to God as “Father” are not forbidden but simply must be paired with the same number of references to God as “Mother.” Similarly, “Christ” would be permissible if “Christa” (or perhaps “Sophia,” a prominent feature of this nascent tradition) got equal billing. Yet the proposed language begs the question of who would keep score, an oversight that could be rectified by creating the ordained office of Inclusive Language Overlord, one per congregation, who would report directly to the radical feminist thought police. The potential impact of this overture becomes apparent when it is viewed in tandem with Overture 99-60 from Palisades Presbytery, which would have each presbytery send a report to next year’s Assembly “disclosing in narrative and/or statistical form how inclusive language is used and/or studied in that presbytery’s churches, in its own worship and proceedings, and in its preparation of inquirers and candidates for ordination as ministers of word and sacrament.” It would only take one more small step to require such statistical reports of every congregation every year, and to penalize those that failed to comply. Certainly those who proposed amending the constitution to require inclusive God- language would expect that constitutional provision to be enforced. Maybe only repeat offenders (read “evangelicals”) would be removed from office. But the specter of witchhunts, so beloved of pro-gay-ordination activists, hangs heavy over this coercive regulation.

Respond to this article 1999 General Assembly

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links