Inclusive language redux: A hilariously unfunny joke

Inclusive language liturgies, as I have noted before, are loathsome exercises in human self-exaltation which render God an impersonal object barely worthy of mention, much less worship. In Scotland, the slide toward relativism, as reflected in the dumbing down of the liturgy, is facing resistance stiff enough to force church leaders to issue a "clarification," ostensibly to allay fears that the new language might reflect "a change in the church's view on the nature of God." Like most such statements, which attempt to defend the indefensible by creating a kind of ecclesiastical legal fiction, this attempt to "clarify" comes across as little more than the punch line to a hilariously unfunny joke.

The Scottish Episcopal Church this week released a statement clarifying its actions stating the permitted changes to the 1982 Eucharist had not “altered the Church’s understanding of God.”

It further stated that changes such as “God is love and we are his children” found in the Confession and Absolution to “God is love and we are God’s children” were drafted “in a way that reflects everyday speech and writing.”

Times have changed, the SEC said, and since the 1982 liturgy was drafted “conventions have changed concerning the use of words which express gender, and the Church is merely seeking to reflect these in its worship. No change in our understanding of God is taking place.”

In a word, this is hogwash. Even putting aside the obvious nonsense of the claim that the new liturgy merely "reflects everyday speech and writing," the logic of the statement simply cannot be sustained. One's language about God inherently reflects one's understanding of God. If "God is love and we are his children," then God is personal and relational; a Father who loves his children with genuine, familial intimacy. But if "God is love and we are God's children," then God is impersonal and coercive; a force from which some vague concept called "love" emanates and ostensibly enlightens "God's children."

Any claim that the use of "inclusive language" is not intended to reflect a change in the church's understanding of God is, at best, naive and, at worst, egregiously disingenuous.