Women And Worship

The contemporary women's movement has highlighted several issues of concern relating to women and the church's worship. These issues include questions on the presence of female leadership in worship, the use of inclusive language for humans, the language used for God, whether Judeo-Christian worship is fundamentally sexist, and the use of images of women in worship.

The current women's movement, like its nineteenth-century forerunner, has included in its critique an examination of the position of women in the church in general and in the church's worship in particular. Several issues have emerged as a result of this renewed awareness of the role that the church has played and continues to play in the oppression of women as a group. (1) The contemporary concern of the women's movement for equal access for women in existing ecclesial structures dates back to the nineteenth-century women's movement. In relation to worship, this concern has focused especially on the presence of women as leaders in worship in general and as ordained clergy in particular. The struggle of women to gain official recognition of their ministry by the church has, in many cases, been successful. It has also generated extensive research and publications on the history and theology of women's leadership in the church. Moreover, this struggle characteristically has been motivated not only by a concern for the public recognition of the call to ministry of individual women, but also by the conviction that such a recognition would itself constitute a powerful witness to the fullness of a church of women and men, equal in the sight of God by virtue of their baptism. At the same time, the physical presence of women at the altar and the pulpit also challenges presuppositions about the nature of God and the adequacy of exclusively male language to speak of God. (2) A more contemporary concern has been the use of language in such a way that women are, implicitly or explicitly, included. The conventional practice in English of using male referents as "?generic,?" i.e., referring to the whole human race, has been sharply challenged by those who point out that such usage perpetuates the misconception that males are normative human beings and women are secondary, derivative, or deviant. While this critique is by no means universally accepted, the scholarly community in general and the publishing community specifically, especially in the United States of America, have adopted "?inclusive?" language more and more. All evidence suggests that this practice will eventually be accepted. The use of inclusive language in reference to people in liturgical books, hymnals, resources, and Bible translations has growing support within many church bodies. Linguistic changes are beginning to appear in revised liturgical books and new translations of Scripture. (3) Although often perceived as a part of inclusive language, use of language about God is most usefully treated as a separate (though not unrelated) issue. The predominantly (if not exclusively) male image of God, which is portrayed in the traditional language of prayer, Scripture, and hymns (to say nothing about visual images), raises questions about the extent to which women are created "?in the image of God.?" Such androcentric language has also undoubtedly been used to reinforce the notion that men are not only normative representatives of the human race, but also more adequate than women as representatives of God. Proposals for change range from the elimination or avoidance of any gender-specific language about God, through the attempt to balance male and female language and titles, to the use of only feminine pronouns and titles for God. Efforts to alter masculine language encounter most difficulty with language referring to God as Father, references to Jesus, and Trinitarian formulae. The first difficulty is a problem not only because of the theological import of the term, but also because of its emotional resonance for many Christians. The second is a historical difficulty, and the third is a doctrinal and ecumenical problem. Solutions will require serious reexamination of the underlying theological issues in order to recast the language in a way that is accessible to contemporary sensibilities while remaining faithful to the tradition the church has received. The very understanding of "?tradition?" itself has, of course, been challenged on the basis of its exclusion and denigration of women. At the present time, there is no consensus about a solution among those committed to a change in traditional androcentric language about God. Indeed, there will be no easy solution. (4) More fundamental, perhaps, even than critiques of language or admission to leadership, is the question of the ability of traditional structures of Christian or Jewish worship to tolerate the inclusion of women in full equality with men. For some, the Christian and Jewish traditions are fundamentally sexist; therefore, they must be rejected in toto by women and replaced by new feminist religions that appropriate traditions from ancient non-Christian goddess worship. Sometimes called Wicca, such worship includes meditation, trances, and spell-casting. This worship emphasizes the quality of all human beings and their continuity with the natural world. Others deny that Christianity (and/or Judaism) is inherently and irreversibly sexist. These people are committed to the reformation of the church by the full inclusion of women and the recognition of women's contributions, both past and present. Some understand this position not as a reformist position, but as a "?radical?" position, i.e., calling the church back to its "?roots,?" which have been revealed to have been far more egalitarian than has been assumed. (5) For those who have remained in the church while critical of its treatment of women, yet another concern is the content of worship. These people are concerned, in particular, with the way references to or images of women are presented in the worship service. They are concerned with negative images (Eve as originator of sin; Israel as harlot or unfaithful wife, and so on) and with positive images that reinforce the secondary status of women (Mary as docile and asexual; obedience to male authority as the primary measure of female virtue, and so on.). The avoidance in lectionary readings and preaching texts of scriptural material that depicts women as agents of God in history (Miriam; Hannah; Mary Magdalene as "?first witness to the resurrection,?" rather than reformed harlot, etc.) is noted, as is the dearth of similar examples from more recent history. The Roman Catholic church, with its sanctorale cycle, has more resources for this than most Protestant churches, although even in the Roman Catholic church male saints predominate. For relevant titles on this subject, see Carol Christ and Judith Plaskow, eds., Womanspirit Rising, 1979; Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, 1983; and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 1983.