[lg policy] Inclusive language policy of the Scottish Episcopal Church

[Harold Schiffman]

Inclusive Language
Ruth has the skinny on the Inclusive Language amendments that the
College of Bishops has licensed for permitted use.

The paper proclaiming these amendments has not reached these parts and
I’m not sure what that situation means liturgically.

Most of the amendments are not particularly surprising, and indeed,
some of them have been in use for many years in St Mary’s, licensed
more by the gentle nodding of one mitre or another than by any more
troublesome process.

I’m in favour of using language that does not leave people feeling
left out of worship. It seems to me to be more a matter of politeness
than theology. And theology is trumped by politesse as all good
Anglicans know.

Here in St Mary’s we do have an inclusive language policy and so
incorporting the amendments which are now on offer and which we don’t
already include will happen without, I suspect, any fuss at all.

Generally speaking at St Mary’s, you can expect to find us trying to
use language that is inclusive of persons at all modern language
services. Choral Evensong and the 1970 Liturgy we don’t mess too much
with. We try to use inclusive language in hymnody and actively look
for inclusive versions of hymns. That’s been the tradition since long
before I got here. Its also harder to do than it seems.

There are a small number of exceptions which I do allow through the
net. Dear Lord and Father of mankind is a hymn I can’t quite bear to
lose and can’t quite bear to change the first line of. The other
obvious one from the past is He who would valient be. It seems to both
myself and to the director of music that its permissable to allow
exclusive language in hymns which directly address the reality of
hobgoblins.

I’m no pushover though. Some things just don’t get sung no more, no
more. Firmly I may believe and truely, but it won’t be sung here
whilst I am provost.

We try to use a wide variety of imagery relating to God in what we
sing here. That means looking out for hymns which use things other
than male language (Father, Lord, King) to balance those which do use
such language.

As always with hymns, you can’t please everyone. However I think our
hymnody is, whilst tending occasionally towards the eccentric, the
most exciting I’ve found anywhere.

Christmas Carols can be trouble, whichever way you approach them. And
I’ve been planning Christmas just this week.

As for the new amendments that the Bishops are permitting, I welcome
the texts. I don’t welcome the way this has been done. If it was worth
doing, it was worth going through a synodical process and amending the
actual texts so that these were for everyone and not simply options.
That’s what we have always done before. This method rather makes one
feel that the Fathers think that they know better than the rest of us
and don’t really think this is that important.

Not quite the desired message when dealing with issues of inclusivity,
I’d have said.

http://www.thurible.net/20100730/inclusive-language/
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list