I AM not a Methodist, but as a lecturer in an ecumenical college with a strong Methodist component, I am often invited to speak in Methodist churches and every time I am warmly received. I hope my offering the following observation would be taken as coming from a grateful and concerned friend.
In recent times significant liturgical changes have been taking place in the Western churches. Changes, of course, are needed; the language of worship cannot remain static in a rapidly changing world. It must communicate the Gospel in an idiom that modern people could understand. But the change in some cases goes beyond updating. It seeks to purvey a different theology.
If we examine the United Methodist Hymnal, which is now used in most of the English-speaking Methodist churches in Singapore, we would have noticed that in many of the hymns and virtually all the responsorial psalms, the masculine pronoun for God is scrupulously avoided. In this respect, the UMH has outdone the NRSV Bible in its use of inclusive language! The strategy is to repeat the word God over and over again (e.g., Hymns 66, 73 and the Psalter).
At first glance this might seem like a small innovation, but the change is not totally innocent when we consider the motivation behind it. The reluctance to use the masculine pronoun for God is no doubt an attempt to accommodate the sensibilities of feminists over what they perceive to be Christianity’s bias towards maleness as reflected in an excessive use of male metaphors for God: father, husband, master, lord, etc.
In two previous articles in Methodist Message I have pointed out that this is not the case. (MM, October 1999, Page 9; MM, November 1999, Page 9). The fatherhood of God has nothing to do with the maleness of God, but is the language of divine revelation that underlines God’s personal and relational nature. I am not saying that the UMH has jettisoned the concept of God’s fatherhood. There are texts (the Lord’s Prayer) and hymns (e.g., Hymn 144) where God as Father could still be found. But by refusing to use the masculine pronoun in place of God, it is in fact interpreting the masculine pronoun as carrying sexual connotations. It is this underlying assumption that I question.
The pronoun, as any grammar book will tell us, is a word used in place of a noun. Its function is to establish identity; that is to say, he/she/it refers to the preceding noun. Its meaning is entirely dependent on the noun it replaces. Now, if God is not understood as male, then the “he” replacing “God” could not be understood as male either. There is therefore no possibility of misunderstanding “he” if the noun it replaces is not understood as male.
The reticence on the part of the editors of the UMH to use “he” is not because of a need to be more theologically precise; I suspect that it is due largely to the need to be seen as politically correct. As a matter of fact the UMH strategy, if consistently applied, would create theological confusion rather than clarity in some instances. For example, the repetition of God in Gen 1:27 will only result in sheer confusion: “God created humankind in God’s own image, in God’s image God created humankind.” Are there two gods involved in the creation of humankind?
I may sound like I am nit-picking, but what ordinary lay people need to realise is that such kind of changes in the liturgy will have far-reaching consequences for both theology and praxis. Worship is where Christians learn their primary theology, subliminally through direct participation. Liturgical language is the dynamic language of a worshipping community and, for good or ill, it will inevitably shape the worshippers’ understanding of the reality that the liturgy embodies. We cannot be too careful, especially when those changes are driven by a dubious ideology. We might then ask, what can we do about it?
May I suggest two things? First, the church must be more critical in its use of liturgical resources from the West because they affect not just a few isolated individuals but an entire church. Denominational affinity is no guarantee that the imported commodity is wholesome. Modern ideologies know no ecclesiastical boundaries. Second, the local church might want to consider developing its own liturgical materials by selectively drawing on the wider Christian tradition to ensure theological integrity. The process may be long, tedious and expensive, but it will be an education in itself. It will make for a more discerning church.
The Rev Dr Simon Chan is Dean of Studies at Trinity Theological College and spiritual adviser of Herald Assembly of God.
EDITOR: We note with appreciation the Rev Dr Simon Chan’s point. The Methodist Church in Singapore does not have a hymnal of its own. We continue to use the United Methodist Hymnal of the United Methodist Church because it contains Wesleyan heritage and theology.
We asked the Rev Chong Chin Chung, District Superintendent (City-East) of the Chinese Annual Conference, and a part-time lecturer in liturgy at TTC, for his comments, and this is what he said: “The use of pronouns in liturgy may be a cause of concern for those who wish to be politically correct. The United Methodist Hymnal has made acceptable changes in the light of a ‘rapidly changing world’. So far nothing has appeared to confuse the lay people in Singapore. The Chinese translation of the text has escaped any possibility of confusion with the use of a pronoun that has the character for God, i.e. “
