Colloquium 2012: papers/ podcasts

[podcasts can be found here]

 Paper 1/ Rev Dr Anne Logan:
Lady Ministers, Language, role and the ordination of women


About thirty years ago, when I was a young minister I attended a Fraternal– it was openly and blatently called a ‘fraternal’ and I will put my hand up and admit I didn’t have the wit to challenge that! I was the only woman present and eventually we came to the bit where the hosting minister was serving the tea and coffee. He poured a cup of tea and handed it to one of my colleagues – who made to refuse it saying ‘Oh ladies first surely’ The host minister continued to hold out the cup to the man and said without even looking towards me – ‘that’s not a lady, that’s a minister.’ I’ve spent the intervening 30 years wondering whether to be pleased or insulted.

When I was asked to present a paper today I was a little apprehensive in that there really is not much in my research about language and gender inclusive language. When I started my research I aimed to be exploratory - I didn’t start with a thesis to be proved. I was aware as we all are the ministers are diverse and varied and women ministers are equally so – gender doesn’t make us speak with one voice so mostly I deal with trends and issues about which a number of women had spoken. My interviews were fairly unstructured as those who took part were invited to reflect on half a dozen different areas of ministry – and those reflections took many different directions. So, if you are a minister of word and sacrament and a woman and during today you hear stuff that you don’t agree with or which doesn’t match your position – that is right, it simply will be a trend or an issue which has occurred with some women clergy.

One of those issues which cropped up in a number of the interviews was this phrase ‘lady ministers’ and absolutely none of those who mentioned the phrase found it to be a positive or affirming title. One of my interviewees put it very well
a ‘lady’ minister, as they keep calling us, which to me always sounds like a diminishing term,...........not a proper minister, but a ‘lady’ minister…(Suzie)
‘Lady minister’ is a fine example of what Lesley Northup in her article about Gendered forms of address in religious institutions describes as the ‘semantic derogation of women’and perhaps those who dislike the title recognise that behind such a description is the stealing of the power to name ourselves.

But even if women ministers get to name themselves – its not entirely straightforward – some of us are women ministers and some of us are ministers who happen to be women – but we kid ourselves if we think that it is only what we call ourselves that matters. That’s where the ‘lady ministers’ bit kicks in. Women’s ministries are also defined and demarcated to some extent by what other people call us – whether our colleagues, our congregations or the unchurched majority who live in our parishes. We minister the parameters of what they understand by the role ‘minister’ and also by what they understand by the role ‘woman.’ That affects women ministers at quite simple levels– do you bake for the Guild Coffee mornings because you are a woman, because the previous ministers wife used to or do you bake for the Guild Coffee mornings because you are a superb maker of scones, do you join the work party cleaning the rhones and mending slates because the last minister did, or because you have a background in civil engineering. These are trivial things in a sense, but women ministers have all worked through some variation on the theme. Again when I was a very young minister, a very senior minister told me just before we went to lead worship together that I shouldn’t wear a dog collar because it was ‘very unfeminine’. Now just think about that for a minute - I was being told that a dog collar was unfeminine by a man who was to all intents and purposes wearing a long black dress!! So, how short a short skirt can a woman minister wear, how low a neckline, how much makeup – where do you strike the balance between the competing roles of woman and minister? One minister I know was at a meeting with other local clergy. It was a hot day and they were out in the garden. She was wearing a long summer skirt and because her feet were swelling, she slipped off her sandals. One of her male colleagues spent weeks accusing her of having ‘exposed’ her ‘naked’ feet! Eve the temptress was alive and well at that ecumenical meeting.

An interesting thing to come out of the research was the extent to which women ministers in the Church of Scotland are still pioneers – and some of my interviewees were younger women and some even amongst the older women were relatively recently into ministry but they still found themselves ‘pioneering’ So we’ve been through the first woman to get married in her parish; the first to have a baby; the first to get divorced; the first to be openly Lesbian; and indeed very early on we managed the first to have an affair with a parishioner. But there was evidence from the research that women often still find themselves ‘first’ to do something. So 44 years on, there is a question about ‘pioneering’ and women ministers as ‘pioneers.’

A final area I wanted to explore today was the notion of women ministers as ‘token’
Rosabeth Kanter developed the idea of ‘tokenism’ to describe the effects of being a minority in the workplace. Women are about 15% of the ministry in the Church of Scotland. Tokens are not merely deviants, nor individuals who differ slightly from the main group in one particular, rather they are people who are identified by major characteristics (such as gender) and these characteristics carry with them a set of assumptions from the dominant group (in this case the men) about culture, status and behaviour of the token group. So a token group differ from the dominant group not in their ability to do a task or in acceptance of work norms but only in terms of these secondary and informal assumptions which are made about them.
Tokens are highly visible because they are a recognisable minority and so their actions are subject to greater scrutiny and they are under greater pressure to perform – and they have a symbolic role. Many of the women in my study were quite conscious that every time they did something (funeral, wedding whatever) the entire population of women ministers was being judged on their individual performance.

Within the studies of ‘tokens’ in secular life (Kanter, 1997) (Roth, 2004) (Spangler, Gordon, & Pipkin, 1978), it was noted that the high visibility of women had two possible outcomes in terms of achievement: either women overachieved in an effort to have their achievements noticed, or they underachieved in order not to draw attention to themselves or took other steps to limit their visibility. Whilst many of the women in my study were conscious of having to be better than the men, there were no obvious examples of deliberate underachievement in terms of parish work. However, the deliberate rejection of some of the women ministers of involvement in the committee structures of the Church, and the under-representation of women at senior level in those committees, may point to a different form of underachievement, a complex response to their high profile. Kanter says:
Those women preferring social invisibility also made little attempt to make their achievements publicly known or to get credit for their own contributions to problem solving or other organizational tasks. They are like other women in the research literature who have let others assume visible leadership (Megaree 1969) or take credit for their accomplishments (Lynch 1973; Cussler 1958). These women did blend into the background, but they also limited recognition of their competence (Kanter, 1997, p. 974)

Polarization, or the exaggeration of difference, is the second feature of tokenism to be considered in regard to the women ministers. So incidents from my interviewees - A group of male ministers, when learning that a woman was coming amongst them as a colleague, wondered if they would expect their male colleagues to take all their funerals; another complained that women are time consuming and need reassurance; someone else considered that women’s high pitched voices will not carry in Church. The presence of tokens within a group serves to make the dominants more aware of those things which they hold in common, so that, far from threatening the collectivity of the dominant group, the presence of tokens serves to highlight it. It has already been noted that the presence of women in ministry has caused some of the male clergy in the Church of England to become more engaged in conversations with the Roman Catholic Church, whereas in Scotland it has caused some male clergy to prioritize their common ground with the Free Church.

At a conference recently, I was one of three women present, the remaining delegates, some 32 in number, were all men. The speakers at the conference and the chaplain were all male. On arrival there had been a female secretary from the Church offices to ensure that registration was completed. On the second day of the conference, I happened to be first to arrive back in the lecture room after lunch. Being Presbyterian, I took a seat, not in the front row, but in the third row back. Soon a couple of male colleagues came in, already engaged in conversation and, without acknowledging my presence, they sat together in the front row on the other side. A number of other male colleagues came in and sat down, but none beside me or even in my row. One of the other women came in, looked around, smiled and came and sat beside me. Most of the remaining men came in, but none sat in our row. The third woman came in just as the lecture began and took the first available seat which was in our row. At the end of the first lecture, one of the men sitting in the row behind leant over and said, ‘I don’t know what it is with you women, you always have to sit together.’ I felt it incumbent upon me to point out that as I had been the first person in the room, actually the issue was the 32 men who had to sit together! Or perhaps the issue was that they had to sit apart from the women.

Recent press reports about the under representation of women in charities has pointed out that some of that is homophily – that men just like the company of men.

The third feature of ‘tokens’ is Assimilation that they are continually subject to stereotypical assumptions and generalisations about their category. These stereotypes tend to force the tokens into ‘playing limited or caricatured roles in the system’ (Kanter, 1997, p. 980) Stereotypical roles though can feature in other ways. Kanter identifies four roles which ‘tokens’ might find thrust upon them.

The first is that of ‘mother’ ‘A token woman sometimes finds that she has become a mother to a group of men.’ In fact, the mother role is one which appears frequently in the interviews with women ministers. Quite a number of women speak of ‘mothering’ their congregations. Not all of those who use the imagery are biological mothers, or even married. The minister as ‘mother’ is a comfortable role for women ministers, for congregations and for male colleagues.

The second role is that of seductress. This is an altogether more dangerous role for women ministers, but one which, nonetheless, rears its head. We have already talked about issues over dress. One interviewee was aware that when she got married, there were a few of the men in her congregation who treated this as a betrayal.

Generally, the women interviewed felt constrained to be modest in their dress and to be careful not to display overt sexuality.

The third of the stereotypes is that of pet – a cute and amusing little thing! From the interviews with the women ministers, it would seem as if that role was confined to the younger women. As a probationer, aged 23, I was referred to as ‘the Bairn!’ Younger ministers, or those who had been ministers whilst they were young, recounted tales of being treated as ‘pets’ of congregations and colleagues, making excuses for them, or making much of them on account of their youth. ‘She’s just a lassie!’

The final stereotypical role is that of Iron Maiden. This is a role which most of the women ministers recognise and which, generally, they try to avoid. ‘No point in getting a reputation as a bolshie woman’ says one interviewee.
It is probably, in part, this fear of being cast as an ‘Iron Maiden’ that makes women ministers quite tolerant of the attitudes of their male colleagues and indeed of their congregations. They put up with patronising and difficult behaviour, rather than become a ‘difficult woman!’

So, I raise this kind of formal description of tokens – to see if it fits with the experiences of some of those here.

Some books on the issues!
Figes, K. (1994). Because of her sex :The myth of equality for women in Britain. London: Macmillan.
Itzen, C., & Newman, J. (1995). Gender, Culture and Organizational Change. London: Routledge.
Kamberg, M.-L. (2005). A Woman's Touch. Women in Business Vol 57 No 4 , 14 - 17.
Kanter, R. (1997). Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women. American Journal of Sociology Vol 85 No 5 , 965-990.
Maddock, S. (1999). Challenging Women: Gender, Culture and Organization. London: Sage.
Nicholson, P. (1996). Gender, Power and Organisation. London: Routledge.
Northup, L. A. (1996). Gendered Forms of Address in Religious Institutions: A Case Study. Feminist Theology , 61- 82.
Roth, L. M. (2004). The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street. Sociological Perspectives Vol 47 No 2 , 189 - 214.
Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., & Pipkin, R. M. (1978). Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter's Hypothesis. The American Journal of Sociology Vol 84 No 1 , 160-170.

Paper 2/ The Very Rev Finlay Macdonald
The Motherhood of God Report, 1984

Thirty years ago, in the spring of 1982, the Church of Scotland found itself caught up in a controversy which rumbled on for the next couple of years. As these things do it ruffled feathers, divided opinion and led to questions in the General Assembly.

It began at the Annual meeting of the Woman’s Guild – a national rally which draws Guild members from around the country. It was at this meeting, held in the General Assembly Hall in April 1982 that the row broke out, caused by, of all things, a prayer. In opening the meeting the national President, Anne Hepburn, chose to use a prayer composed by the contemporary hymn writer, Brian Wren. It began with these words: “Dear Mother God, you give birth to all life and love us to the uttermost. Your love surrounds us and feeds us. Within your love we find our home, our joy, our freedom. You open the world to us and give us room to grow and change…Help us, dear Mother God, to catch something of your love.”

This raised more eyebrows than heaven-bound supplications and a few weeks later the matter was raised at the General Assembly. There it was agreed to invite the Guild to set up a small study group to consult with the Panel on Doctrine on the theological implications of the concept of the Motherhood of God and report to a subsequent General Assembly. The report duly appeared two years later, drafted by the Secretary of the Panel on Doctrine, Dr Alan Lewis, then a lecturer in Systematic Theology in New College, subsequently in Austin Theological Seminary, Texas - a gracious Christian man whose untimely death 20 years ago was a grievous loss to the Church. I re-read that report recently and that confirmed my sense at the time that it was a considered and balanced piece of work. However, judging by its reception by the Guild Annual Meeting and the General Assembly of 1984 that was not the majority view.

As the Church had a right to expect, the report was strongly grounded in Scripture and theology. It provided thoughtful insights into the language we use when we speak of and to God and offered illuminating comment on the nature of religious imagery. Sadly,though, it was presented to the General Assembly in an atmosphere of some hostility, with the Moderator ruling, for example, that Mrs Hepburn did not require to respond to a question asking “whether the Divine She is a vegetarian or does she wear a CND badge?” (Not the sharpest question I’ve heard in forty years of attending General Assemblies!) There was obvious irritation at the Report’s assertion that people “feel alienated and distanced from their Maker and Saviour by the exclusive use in the Church of male language for a God known not to be male.”. Asked to substantiate this claim, Alan Lewis responded by pointing to evidence gathered by the Group from interviews and submissions. He then went on to speak of the hostility with which his presentation of the Report had been received a few weeks previously by the Guild Annual Meeting adding, in a telling comment: “it was one of the saddest moments of my life to hear a plea for help, a cry of anguish from people who feel excluded from the Church being treated with derision by those who feel comfortable within the Church.” However, this did not carry much weight in the Assembly either and, when it came to considering the deliverance, an amendment was moved to the traditional proposal to “receive the report”. This asked, simply, that the Assembly should “receive the Report, thank and discharge the Study Group and depart from the matter.” Those who spoke in favour of this approach argued, in essence, that the issue was trivial and not worthy of the Assembly’s serious consideration. (Why then, I wonder were they getting to worked up about it?). When put to a vote the amendment carried by a sufficiently clear majority not to require a card vote. Not, in my view, the General Assembly’s finest hour! However, that was twenty years ago. Today, without apparent objection, the Church’s Book of Common Order contains the prayer: “God our father, mother, creator, protector, made in your image, we adore you.”

The question is, “How are we to talk about and to God?” Wittgenstein remarked: “whereof we cannot speak, therof we must be silent” – but that would make Quakers of us all. I prefer Paul Gerhardt, who put it well in his famous Passion Chorale - “What language shall I borrow, to praise thee heavenly friend?” Indeed, the aforementioned Brian Wren entitled one of his books on religious language, imagery and metaphor, “What language shall I borrow?”

And when we look in the Bible and Christian hymnody we find many ways of picturing and speaking of God – the Lord is my shepherd, the Lord is my shield and defender; the Lord is my rock and my salvation; God is light and in him there is no darkness at all; God is love and, of course, God is our Heavenly Father. Indeed from the lips of Jesus himself we have the instruction to pray using the phrase; “Our Father, which art in Heaven.”

But the point of that image is to express a relationship of intimacy and immediacy – like a father pities his children so the Lord has mercy upon them that fear him. The Bible also tells us that God is a Spirit and that no-one has seen God – so our range of physical imagery is at best an approximation. When we sing the 23rd psalm we are reflecting on the God who cares for us as a shepherd cares for the sheep. We are not suggesting that God is literally someone roaming the hills with a crook and a couple of Border collies. By the same token when we pray “Our Father” we are invoking a deeply personal relationship with our God; we are not suggesting that, in human terms God is male rather than female. Indeed, again we have it from Scripture itself that God created us in his own image – male and female created he them. It cannot be, therefore, that the pre-eminent image of God the father was ever intended to mean that somehow the male of our species is made more in the image of God than the female. Yet when we consider the patriarchal culture from – well, the patriarchs of the Old Testament, to the male domination of great swathes of the church today it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a disproportionate focus on male imagery when speaking of God brings about a situation, not so much whereby God is male, but in which male is God. And that certainly doesn’t guarantee the best of all possible worlds. As Christine Lagarde, Head of the International Monetary Fund observed recently: “If Lehmann Brothers had been Lehmann Sisters……”, then adding after a pause: If Lehmann Brothers had been Lehmann Brothers and Sisters”.

It is important, therefore, to note three things. One, that there is a range of feminine imagery also in the Bible; two, that prominent and significant biblical characters include women and three, that, despite what many thought at the time, the imagery reflected in the “Dear Mother God” prayer was nothing new.

We find passages in Scripture such as Isaiah 66:13 : Thus says the Lord: “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you” ; and both Matthew and Luke record Jesus weeping over Jerusalem; “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings”.

One of the lectionary readings suggested for Mothering Sunday is from the second chapter of Exodus. This contrasts the macho, male Pharaoh who has ordered the slaughter of Hebrew boy babies with the three women who foil his cruel scheme and spare the life of the great liberator Moses. Baby Moses’ mother hides him in a basket in the rushes by the Nile; her daughter, Moses’ older sister, watches to see what will happen. Along comes Pharaoh’s daughter, finds the child and expresses a wish to mother him. Up pops the baby’s sister – “Why don’t I find a Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?” “Good idea says Pharaoh’s daughter”; so the girl runs off and fetches her mother who ends up getting paid by Pharaoh’s daughter to bring up her own child. Nice one. Maternally minded women 3: child destroying Pharaoh: 0.

And then there is a whole tradition of Christian writing and teaching which seeks to reflect what we might call the gentler side of God. Another lectionary reading for Mothering Sunday comes from 2nd Corinthians, chapter 1 and talks of the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort”. Again we are back to the idea of a mother comforting her children, at the same time recognising the dangers of stereotyping; fathers also comfort their children and a lack of, or low level maternal instincts do not make a woman any less a woman. And this brings us back to the limitations of any imagery used of God. The point is well illustrated by a bizarre statement issued by the Council of Toledo in the year 675AD. This spoke of Christ coming de utero Patris - from the womb of the Father. As Alan Lewis put it in the 1984 Motherhood of God report: “Such a deliberately incongruous and impossible use of language shows that the Church Fathers did not suppose that the Father was masculine, but saw that his unique otherness, while embracing the qualities of both father and mother, quite transcended the creature’s separation into male and female”.

Of course, using maternal imagery of God is one thing; addressing God as “Mother” quite another; yet that tradition too goes back over many Christian centuries in the devotional writing of people such as Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century and Julian of Norwich in the 14th. For example the 1984 report quotes a prayer of Anselm’s :

And you, Jesus, are you not also a mother?
Are you not the mother who, like a hen gathers her chickens under her wings?
Truly Lord you are a mother, for both they who are in labour and they who are brought forth are accepted by you………

And from Julian of Norwich:
In Jesus our true mother has our life been grounded through his own uncreated foresight and the Father’s Almighty power…In taking our nature he restored us to life and now…he feeds and helps us on – just as one would expect the supreme and royal nature of motherhood to act and the natural needs of childhood to require.

The report acknowledges –and do I detect a slight tongue in cheek – that the worlds of Anselm and Dame Julian were very different from that of 20th century presbyterian Scotland – but then goes on to make what I think is a nice distinction on which to conclude my comments when it observes that such contemplation and prayer “add not so much to the length of our vocabulary as to the breadth and depth of our understanding of God’s infinite being and ineffable love”

Paper 3/ Dr Elizabeth Ursic
Women, Language, and Worship, in the Church of Scotland

I want to begin by thanking New College, in particular Prof Stewart Brown, Prof David Fergusson, Dr Cecelia Clegg and Dr Elizabeth Koepping for the opportunity to be a Visiting Fellow this spring. I also want to thank those from the Church of Scotland who have made this research possible, in particular Anne Hepburn, whose passion, sharp wit, and personal archives have been most appreciated.

I am here at New College currently completing a book manuscript on female imagery of God in Christian worship. It is my perspective that while feminist theology continues to be written, much less is being expressed in communal worship. Female imagery of God is perhaps the most obvious expression of this theology in Christian ritual. My book investigates worship controversies where communities have successfully incorporated female imagery into their worship expression.

This successful action I term emplacement. Theoretically I argue that place and the action of placing has been de-emphasized recently in ritual studies, particularly in regards to women’s ritualizing. Attention to emplacement allows us to examine contestations of power, a central theme in feminist theology.
Before coming to Scotland, I completed chapters on three worship communities in the United States: United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran, and Roman Catholic. Over the past few months, I have written a chapter on the Church of Scotland, and I have used the Motherhood of God debate to examine the resource of community to foster or hinder emplacement of female imagery in worship innovation.

For this colloquium, I will touch on four topics to stimulate the upcoming small group discussions. I want to begin with observations about the original debate that have received little attention and end with the situation today. First, I want to highlight the role of ministers’ wives in the original debate. Second, I want show the main goal of the opposition was to stop expression in worship. Third, I want to consider how church approved worship aids can settle these debates, and Fourth, I want to share some perspectives from candidates for ministry of Word and Sacrament today.

In 1982, the Glasgow Herald reported the following: “There was a sausage sizzle at the Woman’s Guild’s annual meeting. Mrs. Anne Hepburn, the outspoken president started it in the opening prayer. “God our Mother” she began. The sizzle of sharply intaken breath went round. She said it again. Sizzle. Then again. The fat was in the fire.”

Unlike other communities in my book where opposition was male-led, the Motherhood of God debate in the Church of Scotland began with ministers’ wives in the Woman’s Guild. Mrs. Anne Allen, in particular, was instrumental. She wrote the very first letter of protest, and later served on the Motherhood of God study group. She continued to publicly oppose female language for God in print and on TV.

The activism of Allen, and the other ministers’ wives, however, had its limits. By clinging to their traditionally gendered church roles, these minister’s wives were not ordained and could not serve as commissioners at the 1984 General Assembly when the report was presented, giving the impression that men were leading the debate.

Prior to women’s ordination, being a minister’s wife and leading the Woman’s Guild was the most visible way a Church of Scotland woman could serve the church in her own country. Some of these minister’s wives, including Hepburn, were excited about the new opportunities for women, but many minister’s wives were not.

The vehemence against female imagery of God in the 1980s reflected a frustration with women’s changing roles in church and society. Once women’s ordination was approved, it was no longer possible to openly object to women’s ordination without seeming to be at odds with the church. Shifting the protest to female language for God allowed similar sentiments to be aired without appearing to be in schism with church decisions. Protests against the Motherhood of God also extended the reach of the opposition, creating a firewall of controversy and doubt. Today, many ministers in the Church of Scotland feel emboldened never to use female imagery of God in worship, and most ministers who do include female imagery prefer not to draw attention to the practice so as not to provoke questions or rebuke. How much of this response has evolved from this earlier controversy is open to question, but no doubt it has been a contributing factor.

The second point I want to highlight about the original debate is that it was ultimately more about ritual performance than theological truth.
The final Motherhood of God report was unanimously approved by the study committee. To encourage consensus, one significant accommodation had been made at the beginning of the study. The committee agreed not to issue worship guidelines, but rather to keep the study at the level of scripture and theology. In the final report, however, under a section titled Provisional Assessment: Agreement and Controversy, the only remaining disagreement was whether or not to speak this theological truth during worship.

The argument of the opposition was that because Jesus did not use these words as direct address then churches were not allowed to use them either. The problem with this argument is that Rock of Ages and other well-loved hymns did not meet this criterion either. The fact that no Church of Scotland worship aids were scrutinized on this point shows the opposition’s claim was more tactical than ideological. Once they lost the theological argument that female imagery of God was biblical, the next level of protest was to claim it should never be said out loud.

Stopping the expression of female imagery of God continues today. In 2011, a book of daily reflections by Christian minister Selwyn Hughes was published. Day 324 of Every Day with Jesus mentions Hepburn by name, and erroneously quotes the Motherhood of God report as concluding that God can only be referred to with father language, even though thinking of a motherly father is acceptable. He warns, “Unless we are careful, we will turn the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ into a goddess or female deity.”

What is considered acceptable language in church debates often comes from the language used in worship. Communal worship defines and anchors denominational belief for the church community. From the perspective of ritual emplacement, hymns, psalms, and prayers continue to be repeated throughout a person’s life, connecting personal experience with church teachings. These expressions of faith hold power with church members because they are memorized, expressed, and recalled in ways that theological reports are not.
Let us now consider my third point on how church approved worship aids arbitrate ritual emplacement.

Had the prayer read by Hepburn appeared in a church-approved worship resource in 1982, it is doubtful there would have been much controversy at all.
The current Church of Scotland hymnal is the CH4, Church Hymnary, fourth edition. It is an inclusive language hymnal, but in my first glance through the book it was not all that obvious, and I believe that was the editors’ intent. There are still many male hierarchical titles for God (Lord, King, Father), along with very few female pronouns. The guiding principles used in creating the CH4 are described as follows:

Language has changed in the last thirty years, and it was inevitable that issues of exclusivity and archaism had to be dealt with, as much with the twentieth-century texts as with older hymns. The committee decided against adopting a blanket policy, preferring to decide on each text according to its merits. Broadly speaking, where a text could be sensitively amended by the contemporizing of archaic language or by having an exclusive term replaced by an inclusive one, that was done. But where that was not possible, either the whole text was reworked or it was left intact.

In consultation with churches, the General Assembly approved removing almost one-third of the CH3 hymns for the new edition. The removals had less to do with linguistic concerns than with lack of use in worship. This culling process made room for new hymns to be added which reflected new genres of music such as meditative songs, praise songs, and songs from non-European cultures.

Female imagery of God does appear in the CH4. At least six of the 825 numbered psalms, hymns, short songs, doxologies and amens include some female imagery for God. None of these six hymns were present in the CH3, and all have lyric copyrights after 1973, suggesting that they were written with inclusive language in mind. On the one hand, at less than 1%, it is a relatively small corpus of hymns given the size of the hymnal. It appears that female imagery of God was approached in a concentrated, token manner, rather than integrating this imagery more broadly across the hymnal. On the other hand, including female imagery at all is significant as it weighs in on the Motherhood of God debate because the CH4 was approved by the General Assembly. Also, the references that do appear are rich in imagery and significant in meaning.
Three hymns express female imagery in the first line, making them easy to find in the index. One hymn that stands out begins, “Mothering God.” The hymn is Trinitarian with three stanzas, each stanza referring to a person of the Trinity as Mother:
Mothering God, you gave me birth, in the bright morning of this world.
Creator, source of every breath, you are my rain, my wind, my sun.

Mothering Christ you took my form, Offering me your food of light,
Grain of life, and grape of love, Your very body for my peace.

Mothering Spirit, nurturing one, In arms of patience hold me close,
So that in faith I root and grow, Until I flower, until I know.

Today it can be said that the Church of Scotland accepts female imagery of God as an option for worship because of the CH4. At the same time, concentrating all the female imagery in just a few hymns keeps the material segregated. The practical implication for the Church of Scotland is that worship leaders who wish to include female imagery of God in their worship services now have denominationally approved resources to do so, while the book itself makes this imagery easy to ignore.

Some of you may be wondering how the Holy Spirit is handled more generally in the CH4 because this is where female imagery of God is often found. There are forty six hymns listed in the Holy Spirit section, and they reveal a clear editorial strategy. Most of the imagery is non-gendered with the most frequently used images being fire, dove, wind, and tongues, and gendered pronouns are kept to a minimum.

Now that we have considered the development of worship aids along with the role of ministers’ wives, and the focus on ritual expression, let us conclude with some feedback from current candidates for ministry of Word and Sacrament.
During my research I conducted a group interview with nine ministry candidates, and as they entered the room, I could see how much had changed since the 1980s. Over half of the candidates studying in Edinburgh were female, and almost everyone was studying to become an ordained Minister of Word and Sacrament.
All the candidates were familiar with the term inclusive language. When I asked them to provide examples, most recalled inclusive words for humankind rather than God. The psalm, ‘Brother let me be your servant’, became ‘Brother Sister let me serve you’. The scripture ‘Blessed are all men who’ became ‘Blessed are all those who’. The candidates were less concerned about gendered language for God because they felt the language issue was more complex. When I asked for examples, most said they would expect to hear terms like ‘Creator, Sustaining, and Redeeming God’, rather than the feminization of God. As one candidate described, it was less about pronouns, and more about “awesomeness”.

There was also a definite desire among the candidates to move beyond defining inclusive language solely in terms of gender. They wanted inclusive language to address racism, classism, disabilities, and any form of alienation. There was eagerness among the ministers-in-training to adapt language in worship so that all would feel included, particularly during communal prayers and responses.
The one gendered name for God that did receive more discussion was the term Father. Some felt that it was important to be sensitive to people if they had difficult relationships with their fathers. This point was also raised in the Motherhood of God report, but other candidates who grew up without fathers or who knew abusive fathers were reluctant to generalize reactions to ‘Father’ language based on family experience.

I asked the candidates to describe instances when they saw church members most troubled by language changes. The examples had less to do with the meaning of the language and more to do with memorization. Many candidates mentioned seeing congregants confused or upset with changes to the Lord’s Prayer. Adjustments to Christmas carols were also mentioned.

The candidates acknowledged that the goal of making church language accessible, inclusive, and welcoming for everyone was a difficult task. Perhaps for this reason, the majority of candidates were comfortable adjusting texts as they were read, and quite a few preferred it. Many candidates found it more natural when people added inclusiveness into the reading. I tested them with a few examples and I was impressed with the candidates’ ease and facility in making these language changes spontaneously.

The candidates also felt that the best way to approach inclusive language was to just do it, rather than to draw attention to it. They also felt it was better to do it sporadically, rather than making it a campaign.

Throughout the discussion, I found the candidates were most concerned with using language that did not provoke their congregations. I found this attitude interesting because the beginnings of the inclusive language movement intentionally challenged churches to be more conscious about the language they used; Anne Hepburn’s prayer to “God our Mother” definitely confronted the status quo.
In contrast to how they preferred handling their congregations, the candidates themselves often became aware of the importance of inclusive language through abrupt, direct confrontation either by a faculty member here at the Divinity School or by a minister at their church placements, and they saw this as appropriate and beneficial for their development.

At the same time, according to the candidates, there are still large portions of the Church of Scotland that do not use inclusive language, particularly in the evangelical wing of the church. As one candidate shared, “That is the situation where I come from. There still isn’t any consideration in any way that we should have inclusive language. I’m not saying that they were completely ignorant of it, because they did realize they were using exclusive language, but they looked at it entirely different. Many of these churches still will not appoint a female minister.”

The connection between inclusive language and women’s ordination has been made before. The difference today compared with the 1980s is that congregations feel settled, free to worship as they wish without interference. Whether churchgoers are for or against women’s ordained leadership, they know which kirks to attend for worship as well as what language they will hear. Female ministers have told me they do not even bother applying for certain positions based on this knowledge.

As the session was drawing to a close, I asked the candidates if any particular images of God were currently inspiring them and what word described the image. Four images were described and they reflected diverse ways people see God today. Two images had gender, and two did not. Jesus was one of the images, with arms open on the cross, communicating ‘embrace’. A mother hen with chicks was another image, representing ‘gathering’. The two non-gendered images were bread for ‘ecumenism’, and rock for ‘strength’.

In conclusion, the Motherhood of God report remains a significant achievement for those advocating for female imagery of God in the Church of Scotland. The original debate occurred against a backdrop of shifting attitudes and opportunities for women in church and society and it was propelled by ministers’ wives who sought to stem the tides of change. While the opposition first attacked the subject theologically, when this point was lost, the movement revealed its larger goal - to stop female language for God being uttered in church worship. While the opposition was initially successful in stopping the report from being discussed at the General Assembly in 1984, ultimately advocates for female imagery of God prevailed when the CH4 hymnal was approved by the General Assembly in 2005. Today Church of Scotland candidates are not as polarized in their attitudes as Church of Scotland ministers have been in the past regarding inclusive language, but neither do they see their role is to prophetically challenge their congregations to use inclusive language either.

For my book, the Motherhood of God debate in the Church of Scotland demonstrates how communities and coalitions operate within church settings to advance or stop the emplacement of female language in Christian worship. It has been almost thirty years since the Motherhood of God report was issued, and much has changed, yet much has stayed the same. I hope this paper has provided some thoughts for our small group discussions and I look forward to hearing the panelists’ responses later this afternoon.