Inclusive vs. Excluding Language at the Local Preachers Meeting

Our superintendent, Yvonne, has instituted a new programme at our Local Preachers Meeting (for Americans and non-Methodists, the British Methodist Church relies on lay preachers to fill appointments on Sundays because ministers are not in each of their churches on each Sunday). She calls it Further Development (I think). Anyway, the aim is to get the Meeting to discuss further aspects that relate to our leading of worship. Tonight, my Blackburn Circuit colleague Jim Jones led the discussion on what we normally call ‘Inclusive Language’. He opened with a story recounting an experience at a restaurant. His party ordered four coffees, two decaf and two caffeinated. The waiter returned and with two saying, ‘These are the “normal” ones.’ Jim asked the meeting (not the waiter), ‘What would that make the other two?’

That was the perfect way to begin this session. He wanted to change the way we talk about issues surrounding this in two ways. 1) Rather than talk about ‘inclusive language’ and make that the aim, he wants us to think about using ‘inclusive language’ as our starting point and try to eradicate ‘excluding language’. He said we sell ourselves short by saying we need to be more inclusive in our language when we ought to be looking at how our language excludes. 2) He wants to move this issue beyond gender issues and look at how we might be excluding others. The example I remember him using was one anyone can see in numerous churches: ‘Come and join us’. It takes the separation of the sheep and the goats and puts it on the notice board! I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think he’s right on this. In our discussion groups, we also mentioned how the word ‘family’ can be exclusive. When I was a single person, I hated to see that word used at church (e.g., ‘Family Night Supper’). It made me and many other single people feel somehow less included or worse as less than people because we had not been married yet. (Of course when you get married, then they start asking, ‘When will you have children?’)

I like the distinction Jim made tonight between saying that ‘we ought to use inclusive language’ and ‘getting rid of excluding language’, especially the use of the verb form of exclude rather than the adjectival form (exclusive). The verb form emphasises the impact of what our words can do. Our starting point in our language, as well as in what we are doing in the mission of the church – to preach a message of God’s grace to all. The implications may be difficult to implement. Not because of opposition (I don’t think anyone there raised any, and Jim didn’t start a debate – it was assumed), but because of how we use language that we normally do. Earlier in the evening we had talked about using written prayers or praying extempore. One of the reasons I don’t often pray extempore is that I grew up with the androcentric language I have been immersed in, and I may jump to it automatically. The difficulty also recognises that I don’t know what each person in a congregation is experiencing. How often do we use ‘blind’ and ‘seeing’ metaphors when there are people with visual difficulties? Those are questions that don’t need to be shirked from, but talked about and at least recognising that they exist, rather than ignoring them.


6 thoughts on “Inclusive vs. Excluding Language at the Local Preachers Meeting

  1. You’re welcome, Pam. It was a good discussion. I’m glad the Local Preachers meeting was looking at it. Those meetings can degenerate into business only.

  2. But isn’t the opening illustration a non-sequitur? Decaf coffee is not normal(the typical state or condition). They don’t grow decaf coffee beans. They have to do something to it to make it like that.

  3. Hi Michael, thanks for stopping by.

    I see your point about coffee beans, but I feel the illustration still works because the situation described wasn’t talking about coffee beans, but on our assumptions on how people order coffee. Decaf is as much a choice as is caffeinated. Is one truly more ‘normal’ than the other? I doubt the waiter who made the distinction really had in mind how the bean is in its original state, and it is very unlikely he meant any offence. Any analogy can break down if it is taken too far.

    Jim’s point was our natural inclination to say one is ‘normal’ and all else is a variation of what is ‘normal’. Which is why he went straight into the assumption that ‘man’ can be used for male person or all humanity – because in history, the male has been considered the standard, if not normal.

  4. See your point about the bean vs. how the coffee is ordered these days. The brain wasn’t thinking along those lines.

    I need to chew on your 2nd paragraph. I have assumed that man as in mankind came out of Genesis language when God created man (mankind) and made them male and female. As far as man being considered “normal,” does that mean in history we have considered females abnormal? I’m not sure I see that. I would agree that much of history has considered females inferior.

    Thanks for the conversation,


  5. Thanks again for your comment.

    I, too, would point to Genesis, but point out that chapter one says that male and female were together created in the image of God, and that the hebrew word there is better translated ‘human being’.

    I agree, much of history has had the female ‘inferior’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s