Silkstein's picture

Silkstein

image

Inclusive Language: The Devil's in the Details

I was saddened to read in the last United Church Observer that the denomination that has done so much work to include women in leadership roles in the church was only able to muster the nomination of one woman for the next moderator out of a pool of six persons.  Certainly, some would point to our attempts as a denomination to make the language of our liturgies, hymns, and sermons more gender inclusive, and say that these changes have been merely cosmetic.

I on the other hand would argue that we have not gone far enough in terms of the inclusive language campaign.  While many of us have become used to feminine representations of God, the Holy Spirit, and even Jesus within our worshipping communities, there is one supernatural being that has been left unabashedly male within our UCC portrayals: Satan.

Nobody seems to be questioning the fact that the Prince of Darkness might also have a bit of Princess in him/her as well.  I think that until we explore the more feminine sides of the Devil we will never truly be able to call ourselves a gender inclusive church. 

A good start might be by asking some our more celbrated hymn writers to create some catchy songs to get the ball rolling with such a campaign.  For the 'More Voices' expansion pack I envision Linnea Good starting off banging out a calypso groove on the piano with the choir singing, "That father of lies/ That mother of fallacies/ How can Satan cast Satanself out/ And still have his empire stand?" (cue a soaring flute solo by Bruce Harding).

Any other ideas?

Share this

Comments

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

We've had a SheDevil here on wondercafe.

 

SheDevil, where are you?

musicsooths's picture

musicsooths

image

I don't think of Satan as male or female I think of evil.

Diana's picture

Diana

image

Hey, that's a cool idea!  Exploring "God" as metaphor, I've looked at the male/female/child/elder/nature aspects of him/her/it,  but looking at evil (Satan as metaphor) in the same way could really inspire some great discussion and insight.  And definitely, let's get Ron Klusmeier to work on that expansion pack!  =)

RevMatt's picture

RevMatt

image

ROFL, Silkstein!  I made that very argument during my studies at Queen's, and was very nearly drummed out for it.  Good on ya for being willing to tilt at that windmill :)

spiritbear's picture

spiritbear

image

If this were good theology, then it might be a worthwhile exercise. But I don't believe it is, and Satan language will certainly never appear in any hymn that I would compose. First, I don't believe in "Satan" as a supernatural entity (but then, I don't believe in God or Jesus as "supernatural" either. God operates within the natural world).  Second, I don't believe in the dualistic theology you're promoting - that God and Satan are rivals for our loyalty (which is probably a hangover from Zoroastrianism). Evil is the absence of good, not something that exists because some kind of being with a pointed stick encourages us to do evil, just for the sheer joy of having bad things happen. It is our own self-interest (and selfishness) that prompts humanity to do evil.  In God we are called to look beyond ourselves to the interests of our neighbours, community, and world; to choose life rather than death, love rather than hate, creation rather than destruction. We use those negative values as weapons to empower us, but in the end, they only disempower and fracture the communities of which we are a part.

 

Invoking the image of Satan has historically been a way of ending theological discussion, and of identifying who the "enemy" was.  If anything, I find that anti-Christian. As I see it, Christ battled against such a us/them division. If you love your enemies, do you really have enemies? To win an argument, many resort to "demonizing" their opponent - that all issues are black/white or good/evil, with no room for nuance, or compromise.  The Satan/God duality promotes this and robs both sides of their humanity and decency.  I would strongly suggest reading Elaine Pagel's book "The Origin of Satan" which argues that "Satan" as currently pictured is largely a post-Christian construct, and one designed to enforce a homogeneity of thought on the faithful, for fear of being identified with the "wrong" side - Satan.  By failing to look within ourselves for the sources of evil, and instead insisting on an external source ("the devil made me do it!"), we fail to come to grips with the real reasons for evil (and make "devils" of ourselves in the process). Leave Satan to frighten little children on Hallowe'en.  There are other - real - discussions in our faith lives that are much more serious.

 

Any other non-dualists lurking here?

RevMatt's picture

RevMatt

image

Ultimately I agree with you, Spiritbear, both in the non-duality, and the non-corporeality.

 

How we conceive of, and speak of evil, is at least as important as how we speak of good.  Where I agree with the OP is that even in the most non-specific of descriptions, evil is still mostly male, and there doesn't appear to be much stomach for addressing those changes.  Never mind in our hymns or liturgy.

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

Right on spiritbear -  now Matt you do use evil in both it systemic sense and its personal reality - both men and women do evil - Our problem is many who illustrate ill will seem to be men and we do know that down through history there have been women in power who do ill will - it is wrong of course to say something like mankind does evil, it is humankind and it is both systemic and personal.

----------'s picture

----------

image

Silkstein wrote:
I was saddened to read in the last United Church Observer that the denomination that has done so much work to include women in leadership roles in the church was only able to muster the nomination of one woman for the next moderator out of a pool of six persons.

 

Why be glum? Perhaps there was only one woman people thought qualified to be moderator. Putting women into leadership positions just because they're women is as bad as putting men into leadership positions just because they're men. The qualifications of each potential leader must be carefully evaluated.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

Jae wrote:

Why be glum? Perhaps there was only one woman people thought qualified to be moderator. Putting women into leadership positions just because they're women is as bad as putting men into leadership positions just because they're men. The qualifications of each potential leader must be carefully evaluated.

 

I agree

 

RevMatt's picture

RevMatt

image

And further to Jae's point, there have been lots of women Moderators in the past.  It's not like there is any sense at all that women are excluded.  Hell, there are far more women than men in Congregational leadership, and that is working it's way up the courts.  It's been at least a decade since there have been more women than men graduating from Theological Colleges (probably a lot longer, but I only know for sure since my time there).

 

George - what I was attempting to say was about evil as an entity.  Absolutely there is evil at the personal level as well as the super-personal.

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe