Battle Hymns: Declaring a Truce

I vividly remember one annual conference in 1982, a time when the debate over male language for God was more heated than it is today. At that conference, a group of women and a few men positioned themselves among the assembly. They were armed with small but loud metallic clickers they would click whenever exclusively masculine or non-inclusive language was used.

We did not even make it through the bishop's opening prayer when the first mass clicking occurred. Clicking during the opening hymn was mostly covered up by the singing and the organ. However, when the clicking continued during the business session, the bishop gave instructions for it to cease. Though greatly diminished, isolated clicking continued until the bishop issued a second warning.

It was the most discussed event of the conference that year.

For nearly fifty years, we have debated a variety of issues related to appropriate and inappropriate worship and hymn language. We have discussed, debated, and passionately disagreed on militaristic and war language, the gender of God (in all three persons), references to the church as an entity and its people, and how to talk about relationships among people and between God and people.

Over the last fifty years there have been great changes in our church in the language of our worship and congregational song. As our culture's ideas about language have changed, so have the church's new Bible translations, and new hymnals. Increased numbers of women in the ranks of the clergy and church leadership posts have contributed to worship language changes and discussions over inclusive language. Men and women both have struggled through this period of change. Here are some of the issues related to worship and congregational singing:

God Language

• God is spirit, beyond gender, neither male nor female, as far as we know not possessing X or Y chromosomes. Yet, for the first 2,000 or so years of Christianity, referring to God in male terms and images has been the norm, a practice some would like to change and some would like to continue.
• The biblical image of God as Father is ubiquitous in our liturgy, ritual, and hymnody while feminine biblical images of God are largely unused.
• Jesus, Son of God and son of Mary, is male, and yet there are those who wish to minimize the use of male pronouns for Jesus. One example is replacing "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" with "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord" in the Communion liturgy.
• The Holy Spirit is also genderless. Which pronoun do we use when one is required? "It" would seem inappropriate because God is always personal and never an "it." That leaves us in English with he and she. In some languages, French for instance, the Holy Spirit is referred to with the feminine pronoun, but seldom so in English. Many are likewise uncomfortable using the masculine.

Military and War Language

• Wars have largely been fought by men with women in support roles. Many men have a personal understanding of hymns that embrace military language and images because of their own experience: "Am I a Soldier of the Cross" and "Onward, Christian Soldiers," for example. War as a political instrument is at odds with the Social Principles of our church: We are to seek peace in our families, our communities, our nations, and our world. However, when hymns are altered or removed, some men see that as an indictment of their own role as soldiers.
• Military service is one way Christians have lived out their biblical obligation of civic service. The removal of military and war images and language from worship and hymns is perceived as a dishonoring of those who answered and may have died following that call to serve God and country. The removal of The Navy Hymn ("Eternal Father, Strong to Save") from the 1989 hymnal is often cited as an example of this dishonoring. Military metaphors in hymns and worship affirm the Christian's duty of honorable civic service.

Church Images

Of less concern than God-language and war-language but still important to many is how we refer to and understand the nature of the church.

• The church is understood to be ecumenical and universal. It is also a denomination, smaller organizations and agencies, and a local congregation. These are regarded as institutions and appropriately referred to as "it."
• The church is also "where two or three are gathered" with Christ in their midst. The church is personal and relational, not just institutional. This church is difficult to understand as "it."
• Scripture and hymns use a number of images and metaphors when referring to the church: the "Bride of Christ" and "like a mighty army" offer contrasting images.

Concerns from Men

The church has gone to great lengths to be responsive and sensitive to the needs and expectations of ethnic constituencies and women in worship. Hymnals, songbooks, ritual, liturgy, and spoken worship resources have been designed and edited to remove references that may be considered objectionable, demeaning, or stereotypical. And we all celebrate this. Can we not also give the same consideration to hymns that may reflect the needs and sensitivities of men?

Questions and Answers About Inclusive Language in Worship

• Does God, as spirit, possess gender? No, God is not male, God is not female, and God is not both male and female. Understanding God as one or the other or both is always an inaccurate and inadequate limitation of God's true nature. Assigning gender characteristics to God, as with assigning any human characteristics to God, is always limiting.
• When Jesus and Scripture refer to God as father, what does that mean? It means that in that particular context, our experience of God is similar to our human experience of our human fathers. Fathers often provide training, guidance, direction, support, correction, strength; and when we receive these qualities in our relationship to God, then we correctly experience God as similar to our human father.
• What about other images and metaphors for God used in Scripture? What do we mean when we say that God is like a mother hen gathering her chicks, or the Lord is my shepherd, or a mighty fortress is our God? We do not mean that God is a shepherd. We mean that we can experience the presence of God in our lives in ways similar to those of a sheep and its shepherd. We do not mean that God is a mother hen. We mean that we can have a relationship with God that is like that of a mother hen and her chicks. We do not mean that God is a fortress. We mean that we can experience strength, shelter, protection, and a source of help from God. We experience God in many ways––as father, as mother, as nurturer, as protector, as help.
• Why do Scripture, liturgy, and hymns almost always use male pronouns for God? There are two reasons: culture and language; the second is an outgrowth of the first. For most western cultures, males have been dominant. They rule and govern; they provide for food and necessities; they fight our wars; and they control commerce, communication, education, and religion. This being the case, it is an easy step for words such as "men" to be used to refer to both men and women. Male words, symbols, and images have long been used to include all people. The culturally dominant gender comes to stand for all.
  
  In addition, consider the fact that the English language has only three pronouns to use for God: he, she, and it. We omit "it" as inappropriately impersonal. There is no personal gender-neutral or gender-inclusive pronoun for God.

Recent Changes

In recent decades, there has been increasing awareness of the inequality and injustice of a male-dominant society that has kept women in inferior positions, earning less money, kept from advancement in or even completely out of some professions and roles. In western society, women have made great strides in all professions and roles.

In the church, we have seen an increase in the number of women in seminaries, ordained as clergy, appointed to larger and more prestigious congregations, selected as district superintendents, and elected as bishops. Women head some of our general church agencies and serve in previously all-male groups such as agency boards and the Judicial Council.

These changes have been accompanied by changes in our worship, liturgy, and hymns. Examples of these changes may be found in the Guidelines for the Language of Hymns As Developed and Used by the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal Revision Committee, also commended for use by the Hymnal Revision Committee constituted by the 2008 General Conference.

Guidelines for the Language in the 1989 Hymnal

• Employ inclusive forms of address for persons in the assembly, in the community and in the world in traditional hymns and in new hymns in traditional language.
• Retain the poet's original forms of address, descriptions, and metaphors for God, all three persons, whenever possible, but substitute for unnecessarily repeated gender metaphors, nouns, and pronouns.
• Examine texts carefully with regard to what they say about (among other things) international understanding and cooperation, the eradication of war and the establishment of justice and peace.
• Substitutions may be made for gender descriptions, and forms of address for church, nation, nature, objects, and virtues.
• Substitutions for words and phrases ought not change the essential message of the hymn.
• New hymn texts should be inclusive and universal in outlook, free from divisive elements and phrases that convey attitudes of superiority or indifference toward people outside the circle of singers.

Employment of these guidelines in compiling the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal and similar guidelines for the 1992 United Methodist Book of Worship resulted in great changes in worship and hymn language. These changes were celebrated by some, resisted by others. Controversy and disagreement remain with us today, although at greatly reduced levels from those when the 1989 Hymnal Revision Committee was doing its work. Here are some of the changes made between the 1966 Methodist Book of Hymns and the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal.

Changes Made in Hymnals from 1966 to 1989

• In referring to the human family, "men" was most often replaced with a plural neutral form. Stanza two of "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing" in the 1989 United Methodist Hymnal, changed "pleased as man with men" to "pleased with us in flesh" and stanza three's "born that man no more may die" and "born to raise the sons of earth" to "born that we no more may die" and "born to raise us from the earth."
• Anachronistic language was updated: "thee," "thou," and "thine" were replaced with modern forms of "you."
• "Am I a Soldier of the Cross?" and "Onward Christian Soldiers" were voted for deletion, later restored following great protest from the church.
• "Eternal Father Strong to Save" (The Navy Hymn) was deleted.
• "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was retained with some modification of its text.
• Words, metaphors, and expressions that could be perceived as discriminatory were removed or replaced ("white as snow" from "Have Thine Own Way, Lord" and the omission of Wesley's stanza seventeen ("wash the Ethiop white") from the text of "Glory to God, and Praise and Love."
• Language describing handicapping conditions perceived as discriminatory was altered, deleted, or footnoted (stanza six of "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing").
• Male pronouns were often changed to "God" ("him," "his," and "he'll" changed to "God" in "If Thou but Suffer God to Guide Thee," and "Father" to "Maker"; similar changes in "I Sing the Almighty Power of God," "Sing Praise to God Who Reigns Above" and other hymns).
• New hymns employing female imagery and metaphor were included: "The Care the Eagle Gives Her Young," "How Can We Name a Love," and "God of Many Names." The committee rejected hymns that addressed God as "she" or described God as "mother."
• The hymnal's Psalter is people-inclusive and deity-neuter and resulted from guidelines that went beyond those used for hymns.

These changes have been with us for more than twenty years, and many have come to accept them or have grown up with them, not knowing of the earlier forms. In addition, it is apparent that many of our younger worshipers are not as concerned with issues of inclusive language in hymns as were their parents. Evidence of this is found in the lack of attention to inclusive language in much contemporary praise and worship music now being sung in our worship services.

We remain divided over this issue and need a way forward, especially as we look toward a new denominational hymnal. That way forward, I am convinced, is not in finding a magic formula that, when applied to our hymns, will make everyone happy. Rather, it is in our adopting a new spirit of inclusiveness, rooted in the recognition that God is revealed in many marvelous and valid ways -- he, she, father, mother, creator, sustainer, spirit, savior, shepherd, fortress, nurturer, lover -- the images are as many and varied as are the people. Our task should be to recognize and celebrate that diversity, even if we are unable to personally understand and experience it. Toward that end, here are some suggestions:

Suggestions for Truly Inclusive Worship Language

• The poetic, literary, and English-language demands placed upon our liturgy and hymn texts require the use of personal and possessive pronouns in referring to God, Holy Spirit, people, and the church. When this can be accomplished without gender theologically and artfully, let it be so. When gender is required or desired, use singular, plural, male and female forms as appropriate to the context, and in a balanced quantity.
• Jesus was human and male, and there is no need for our song language to reflect otherwise. At the same time, we must be sensitive to those people who struggle with expressing some ideas contained in liturgy and song. Some women have been abused by men and find it difficult to sing "My Jesus, I Love Thee" or the third stanza of "Have Thine Own Way, Lord." Some men will simply never be comfortable singing about or confessing their love and devotion to another man, including Jesus, as in the poetry of "There's Something About that Name."
• Our liturgy and hymns should employ many different images, symbols, and metaphors that help us know and understand the nature of God, the church, and ourselves. These symbols should always be theologically sound, biblically based, and have a grounding in true Christian experience.
• Our liturgy and hymns should affirm the biblical command of civic duty and service, including military service, and should support those people in such roles.
• Our liturgy and hymns should include language and ideas related to spiritual warfare contained in the Bible.
• Our hymns should openly and enthusiastically celebrate who we are as a people of God, including our various constituencies of race and ethnicity, language groups, places of origin, age and generation, and gender. Existing hymns that hold a special significance to men ("Rise Up, O Men of God") and women ("Many Gifts, One Spirit") should be sung enthusiastically by everyone, and new hymns and songs included.
• Declare a cease fire in the ongoing hostilities over worship and hymn language. Accept the fact that God is revealed in many ways to many people. Judge the acceptability of those ways by Scripture, tradition, reason, theology, and Wesleyan and ecumenical practice.
• It is the task of church publishers and hymnal committees to compile and produce hymnals and songbooks that are sensitive to these issues and the many constituencies of our church and to provide resources for all that are faithful to historic Christian, Wesleyan, Methodist, ecumenical traditions, and faithful modern worship practice.
• It is the task of pastors, chief musicians, and worship planners to see that the hymns and songs we sing in worship include a wide variety of language –– images, symbols, and metaphors –– in a healthy and balanced mix and quantity.

There will be some who will not accept these suggestions. Some will continue to demand that our hymns remain as they have always been, dominated with exclusively male references to God and people. Others will insist on the neutering of God in order to show no partiality toward male or female. Some will want to remove all war and militaristic language and images that are not critical, and others see no reason not to glorify Christians battling for the faith or one cause or another. Some will continue to oppose language that some constituency may find meaningful, but that holds little meaning for others. We should listen to these concerns, discuss them thoughtfully and constructively, but purposefully and gracefully move on. It is time for us to put these things behind us.

This article was originally published in the Summer 2009 issue of UMMen, the magazine of United Methodist Men.