Introduction

Coolamon College is committed to the full and equal participation of all people in theological education, irrespective of race, cultural background, ability, age or gender. In fact, the main reason for commencing the College in 1993 was to ensure that many more people had access to theological education than was possible previously, when only campus-based courses were available, mostly in capital cities. The Church believes that all people share equally in God's plan for humanity (Gal.3:28) and that we are called, as the Body of Christ, to be a liberating and creative force in the world as we respond to the Gospel of love. This basic theological stance has implications for the life of the Church. One of these is the issue of inclusive language.

The function of language

Language has a dual function in relation to social attitudes and values. On the one hand it reflects attitudes that already exist in society and in the Church. On the other hand, and more importantly, it is a powerful force in shaping our view of reality and the values by which we live. Furthermore, language is a key to human relationships on all levels. In subtle ways, it influences people to choose certain roles and positions in life; it shapes their sense of self-worth. Language, therefore, has great potential as a creative, liberating force in human relationships and in the development of values and attitudes. However, where people ignore or refuse the challenge to re-shape language in order to reflect the liberating values of the Gospel, language itself can become a captive, oppressing force.

Language that consistently and exclusively refers to only one particular class of person or life experience can significantly alienate those whose life experience is other. For example, language that is exclusively male-oriented affects both women and men in negative (and often unseen) ways. Both are forced into stereotypes, regardless of personality, gifts and capabilities.

Although the most commonly noted exclusive language is related to gender, there are other occasions when certain life experiences, characteristics and situations are excluded through the use of insensitive language. Language that assumes that all Australians are white, middle class urban dwellers excludes those whose ethnic background, economic status or life experience are different.

Only giving examples or models of behaviour from one perspective (for example, naming only males when referring to famous people) can distort or limit our ability to receive the message being offered. Assuming that all individuals are married with families, or that all children live with both parents, is clearly false. Inclusive language does not avoid particular references to male or female, economically advantaged or disadvantaged, Anglo-Celtic Australian or migrant-ethnic, but seeks to honour the diversity present in our society and life experiences.

Modifying our language is one important way in which we can struggle for freedom and equality within the Church.

Encouragement is given when writing or speaking/preaching to be inclusive in all aspects of our language. It is in the area of language related to gender that most attention has been given and hence the following discussion explores the main aspects of gender inclusivity.

In the past, the English language has been unfortunate in having only one basic word-group to refer both to male persons (man, men) and to human beings in generic sense (man, men, mankind). Even when used generically, these words furthermore require the male pronoun: he, him, his. Thus a sentence such as the following is perfectly proper grammatically: "Man is a mammal that breast-feeds his young".

This generic use of male categories to represent and include females has been justified in the past by the fact that in many aspects of life, men did actually represent women - legally, politically, in employment, in positions of leadership and so on. Society was patriarchal in its structures and attitudes.

With changing attitudes in society, language itself needs to change. We may use language such as "man" and "mankind" without meaning to exclude women, but the continuation of such terms reinforce power structures that oppress women. Male-generic language is thus no longer appropriate. We need new and creative ways of expressing freedom and equality. Women in the life of the Church (as well as in society) must no longer feel excluded or inferior by the language used.

Suggestions for gender inclusive language

Coolamon College wants to encourage the use of inclusive language in all aspects of College life. This includes Study guides and student presentations; in fact, all written work, whether from students or teachers. This policy was originally formulated at the request of students, women in particular, who voiced their sense of exclusion and inferiority wherever male-oriented language was used.

The following is a list of suggested alternatives for male generic language. We suggest that you experiment until you find alternatives with which you feel comfortable.

1. for "mankind" - people, humanity, human beings, humankind, persons, creatures, community, ourselves, yourselves, folk, mortals
2. for "brothers" - sisters and brothers, siblings, society, community, unity; for "brotherhood" - kinship, solidarity, corporateness
3. for "sons" - sons and daughters, children, offspring, creatures, descendants
4. for masculine pronouns - he/she, s/he, we, our, they, their, one, the one, the (when used generically) person, individual, someone, member

Language about God

The second stage in broadening and opening up our language is in respect to God. Here again, our theology should shape our language rather than be shaped by it. Strictly speaking, gender terms can not apply to the first and third persons of the Trinity at all, but to speak of God as "it" would be to make God less than human and impersonal. Jesus of course referred to God as Abba (Father), and from the earliest days the church has spoken of God in terms of the trinitarian formula "Father, Son and Holy Spirit".

At the same time, the scriptures themselves witness to attempts to transcend the limitations of gender-exclusive concepts and imagery for God. Genesis 1:26-28 makes it clear that female as well as male is made in God's image. In other words, God has feminine as well as masculine qualities and the feminine side is reflected in maternal images (cf. Is. 66:13, Ps. 131:2, Is. 46:3, Luke 13:34). Today we have greater freedom than ever in broadening our vision of God and freeing it from the distortions of exclusively masculine forms of address.

All this highlights a problem of all language about God. Our language can only ever point to, or suggest, certain characteristics of God. Ultimately all language about God is inadequate. At most we can say that God is like a loving parent, but also different from any human parent, or that God is like a monarch, or a judge or a friend, but also different from any human monarch, judge or friend.

The use of a variety of terms for God helps us to recall the rich variety of experiences of God present in our Christian tradition, saves us from excluding any one group from being fully a part of the Christian community, and frees us to respond more spontaneously to whatever way God comes to us.

How might you enrich and balance your understanding of God by the images you choose? Consider the following which some people find helpful:

1. Father - Father/Mother, Creator, Maker, Sustainer, Nurturer, Loving Parent, Source of Life
2. Lord, King - Sovereign, Ruler, Monarch, Yahweh, Judge
3. Master - Saviour, Redeemer. (This is not to say, of course, that it is wrong to refer to God as "Father", "Lord", "King" or "Master", but merely to indicate that a wider range of images is available, both in Scripture and in current liturgical use.)

Various other non-gender specific terms can be used e.g. All powerful God, Everloving God, Gracious God, Eternal God, Light of the World, Guardian, Liberator, Companion, Helper.

The practice of constantly using only male pronouns can be overcome in various ways:

1. Repeat the word God, e.g. God created the world and on the seventh day God rested.
2. Address God in the second person, as "you", rather than "he" or "she".
3. Use "he" and "she" interchangeably.
4. Leave out the pronoun, e.g. "God created the world and then rested", not "then he rested".

Conclusion

Coolamon College attempts to model this policy in its documents. Nevertheless we often use writings from the time before the English language changed. It would be anachronistic and a breach of the academic requirement to quote accurately, to change the style of other writers' work.

In your essays, you will not be penalised if you do not use inclusive language, but you are encouraged to use language which reflects our conviction that God's love and grace are inclusive of all people, and that a wide range of images can appropriately be used to point to the mystery of God's being, however inadequate human language may be for that.

These guidelines draw on the following sources:

United Church of Christ, USA, Inclusive language guidelines.
Australian Council of Churches, Commission on the Status of Women, Am I included or not?

The statement has been adapted from the 1994 Procedures manual of the United Theological College, Parramatta, NSW.