I grew up thinking that God was a man. No-one was bold enough to come directly out and say it, but God clearly had ‘he/him/his’ pronouns, language such as Lord and King were commonly and unthinkingly used, and the trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was the only place where there was any gender ambiguity. And even that contained only a potentially/implicitly/indirectly female for the one-of-three that was ambiguous and amorphous and a distant third in importance.
In my studies, I have been considering the impact of this male God language for quite some time. On the rare occasions that I lead worship or write a liturgy, I try to avoid all male God language. This is achievable in prayers and even Bible readings to some extent, but it drastically reduces song choices.
I have barely been back to church post-COVID but when I do attend, the male God language feels like a slap in the face. Even in relatively liberal churches, there are multiple and consistent instances of male God language used without seeming consideration. I started counting instances of male God language because I believe in evidence. In conversation, I have mentioned the count to leaders who have more often than not rebuked me for being difficult. As Sara Ahmed says, when we name the problem, we become the problem.
So, I have wondered if there is another way to make the point.
In the 1890’s Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) created a series of experiments that measured the amount of saliva a dog produced when they were fed. He noticed that when the dogs heard the sounds associated with the food coming, the dogs would begin to salivate. He demonstrated that the dogs could be taught to salivate (response) by associating a bell (stimulus) with the natural behaviour (salivating in reaction to food). Perhaps this learning process might be applied to male God language.
Whenever a male term or pronoun is used for God, a bell (stimulus) could be rung alerting worship participants to take notice (response). After a while, worshipers would probably hear the bell internally each time they heard an instance of male God language. This would help all participants be aware of the ubiquity of male God language within worship services. This probably would not solve the problem, but it is an important first step.
A second level of training might include a different sound connected to female God language. Given that female God language is often implicitly considered unnatural, the sound for female God language should be pleasing to the ear, so that an association can be formed between positive feelings and female God language. A third variation might be the use of gender-neutral God language.
While this post is written from a ‘tongue in cheek’ perspective, the dominant use of male God language has been shown to reinforce traditional gendered norms that are harmful to many people. While most people are reasonable enough to acknowledge this harm, unless the practices change the acknowledgement is relatively meaningless. The people who are most likely to be impacted by male God language are also probably the least likely to have influence to change things, which means that perhaps we need to be creative in how to address this problem.
Do you notice when male God language is used within worship? Are there other ways that we might draw attention to this issue or change our practices?
Leave a Reply