The Liturgical Commission of the Church of England, also known as the Anglican Church,  which is headed by King Charles III—in the United States it is known as the Episcopal Church, which is independent from the British Crown—met last week to consider whether to use inclusive language, i.e., gender-neutral terms to refer to God after it had also voted to permit its clergy to offer blessings to same-sex couples.

Some its clergy have already anticipated such changes in their services, replacing references such as ‘He” and ‘Him’ with ‘God’ or even ‘they’ and ‘them’. Others have even rewritten the ‘Our Father’ that starts the Lord’s Prayer to ‘Our Father and Mother’.

God’s ‘Nature’ is Masculine

God has always been rendered with masculine pronouns in religious texts and prayers,  even in pre-Christian times. Certain Anglican scholars and leaders, however, argue and that God transcends gender. In 2018, the Church of England’s archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, said that God was neither male nor female.

Sustainers of the ‘genderless God’ in Catholic liberal circles refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states that God ‘is neither man nor woman: he is God’. This is true. Since God is pure spirit, He cannot have a physical gender as we humans have. Yet God is not only spirit. Indeed, for us Christians God is also Father and Son (and Holy Ghost) because this how  God revealed Himself. As the same Catechism says:

‘Many religions invoke God as ‘Father’. The deity is often considered the ‘father of gods and of men’. In Israel, God is called ‘Father’ inasmuch as he is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, ‘his first-born son’…. By calling God ‘Father’, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children…. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.’

The explanation for this is that God transcends His creation and He must be accepted as He has revealed Himself in Holy Writ. This means that it is not up to human beings to adapt its terminology to what is trendy or politically correct, especially if the substance of revealed truths, as we Christians—and I also speak as a Roman Catholic priest—hold dear, are altered.

According to the Bible, Jesus revealed that God is Father, in addition to, attributing divinity of Himself as the Son of God. Hence, Jesus too, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is also God. Hence, the reason why the Jewish authority put Jesus to death because He dared call God Father and proclaim Himself as His Son:

‘The high priest [Caiphas] demanded of Jesus: “Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’ Jesus answered him: “So you say. But I tell all of you: from this time on you will see the Son of Man[1] sitting at the right side of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven!” Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: “He has blasphemed.” (Caiphas declared His statement as blasphemy.) He was then spat upon and beaten and sentenced to death.’ Cfr. Matthew 26, 57-68)

To say that the masculine terms of ‘He’ or ‘Father’ need to be adapted to inclusive or genderless ones is both poor theology and superfluous.

Genderless/Inclusive Language: A Feminist and an LGTBQ+ Agenda

Language has always been, to use an oxymoron term, in a constant flux. More so, within the past fews decades as, in order to adapt to certain societal beliefs and behaviours, linguists have sought to conform to what they see as gendered linguistic discrimination.

In the English language, the feminist movement—distinct from women’s right activists—and LGTBQ+ proponents have made deliberate efforts, for example, to introduce ‘Mx’ for ‘Ms (Miss)’ and ‘Mr (Mister)’ as a term for transgender or non-gender-binary individuals. While ‘Ms’ is widely used in the US and in the UK, ‘Mx’ has also been an option on many government forms, drivers’ licenses, bank paperwork, etc.

Even heads of State, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have pushed for inclusive language. In 2018, he interrupted a woman and light-heartedly corrected her for saying ‘mankind’ not ’peoplekind’ at a town hall event. In like manner, to manifest the absurdity of this, backers of genderless language, feminists in particular, go so far to say that even the word ’humankind’ is sexist because it has the word ‘man’ in it.

Feminists and LGBTQ+ activists alike, to promote language inclusivity, have created new non-binary pronouns (such as zie, xe in English) and have adapted grammatical structures and terms in languages that do not have sufficient genderless spaces, like those in assigning gender-neutral endings to verbs in Arabic and Hebrew).

In 2015, Sweden formally introduced a gender-neutral, singular pronoun, hen, into their dictionary as a complement to the existing pronouns hon (she) and han (he). Inspired by the Finnish pronoun hän (referring to any person, as Finnish is a genderless language). Also in the same year, Sweden published its first gender-neutral children’s book Kivi Och Monsterhund, which used hen pronouns rather than hon and han.

In January 2021, the then Democrat controlled US House of Representatives introduced the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and other diversity measures in order to ‘honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.’ Previously, Congress operated under a binary rule that ‘words importing one gender include the other as well.’

With a record number of LGBTQ+ lawmakers that had joined Congress, the aforementioned rules acknowledged a spectrum of gender identities, as well as same-sex relationships.

The problem with inclusive or genderless language, or whatever it may be called in the future, is that it is altogether misleading. Yet its backers insist that in order to eradicate segregation and discrimination, it must be imposed on everyone. For example, the United Nations Gender-inclusive language sector states:

‘[G]iven how language shapes cultural and social attitudes, using gender-inclusive language is a powerful way to promote gender equality and eradicate gender bias’.

All things being equal, the genderless language crusade of the Church of England’s Liturgical Commission, as those of liberal churchmen in Catholic circles, is unprincipled, at best. To attribute God masculinity is not sexist; to deprive Him of it is bigoted.

^[1] Jesus’ claim before the high priest to be the Son of Man was a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7, 13–14, ‘I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.’ ‘What does it that Jesus is the Son of Man?’ in Got Questions, https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html, accessed 12 February 2023.