Language shapes how Christians imagine God, understand one another, and hear the witness of Scripture. Because words used repeatedly in worship become part of a congregation’s theology, churches should examine whether their language communicates the fullness of the gospel—or unintentionally suggests that maleness is the norm for God and humanity.
Moving toward inclusive, gender-neutral language does not require abandoning Scripture, tradition, or the historic names of the Trinity. It requires careful attention to context, metaphor, translation, and pastoral practice. Gail Ramshaw’s Liturgical Language: Keeping It Metaphoric, Making It Inclusive offers a valuable framework for this work: retain the rich metaphoric character of religious language while ensuring that language intended to include everyone actually names everyone.
Why language matters
Liturgical language does more than convey information. It forms the community’s imagination. Week after week, worshipers hear who God is, who belongs to the people of God, and what kinds of lives can represent divine grace.
When man, men, brothers, or masculine pronouns are used for all people, some listeners may understand the intended general meaning. Others hear language that places men at the center and asks everyone else to identify indirectly. Likewise, when God is referred to almost exclusively as he, listeners may come to associate God’s nature with maleness—even when the church officially teaches that God transcends human sex and gender.
Inclusive language therefore serves several connected purposes:
It makes the congregation’s intended meaning clearer.
It affirms the equal dignity of people of all genders.
It prevents masculine language from becoming an unintended doctrine about God.
It allows biblical and liturgical metaphors to function as metaphors rather than literal descriptions.
It supports the participation of people whose experiences have often been marginalized in church life.
The goal is not linguistic novelty for its own sake. It is truthful, hospitable, and theologically responsible speech.
Begin with a theological distinction
A church’s first step should be to distinguish language about humanity from language about God.
Inclusive language for people
When a biblical or liturgical text refers to people generally, gender-neutral wording is usually both accurate and clear. Depending on the context:
man may become humanity, humankind, mortals, or people;
men may become people, everyone, or human beings;
brothers may become brothers and sisters, siblings, friends, or beloved;
sons of God may become children of God when the intended meaning includes the whole community;
forefathers may become ancestors;
mankind may become humankind or humanity.
These are not mechanical substitutions. The church should ask what the original text means in its literary and historical context. Sometimes a gendered term refers specifically to men; in that case, changing it could obscure the text. When the term is genuinely generic, however, inclusive wording often conveys the meaning more faithfully to contemporary hearers.
Expansive language for God
Language for God presents a different challenge. God is not simply one being within the created order and should not be reduced to a human gender category. At the same time, Scripture offers many gendered and nongendered images for God.
A congregation need not eliminate every masculine title or pronoun. Instead, it can broaden its language so that no single human image is treated as an exhaustive description of God. Alongside Father, Lord, and King, Scripture speaks of God as:
mother giving birth and comforting her children;
a woman searching for a lost coin;
wisdom calling in the streets;
shepherd;
rock;
refuge;
fire;
wind or Spirit;
fountain of living water;
eagle;
light;
judge;
healer;
gardener.
The point is not to create a mathematical balance between masculine and feminine images. It is to recover the range of biblical imagery and to remind worshipers that every image both reveals and fails to contain the mystery of God.
Keep religious language metaphoric
Ramshaw’s emphasis on “keeping it metaphoric” is crucial. To call God rock is not to claim that God is made of stone. To call God shepherd is not to define God’s occupation. Likewise, calling God Father should not be taken to mean that God is biologically male or identical to any human father.
Metaphors disclose something true through comparison, but no metaphor says everything. Trouble arises when one metaphor becomes so dominant that it is treated as a literal and exclusive definition.
A healthy liturgical practice therefore uses multiple images while allowing each to retain its integrity. A prayer might address God as:
“God of mercy,”
“Holy One,”
“Creator of all,”
“Source of life,”
“Shepherd of your people,”
“Mother of compassion,”
“Faithful Redeemer,”
“Living God.”
This variety does not make God vague. It enables the congregation to encounter more fully the God whom no single name can encompass.
Preserve the historic Trinity without reducing God to gender
Churches often worry that inclusive language will displace the baptismal name “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” That concern deserves serious attention. These names are embedded in Scripture, Christian doctrine, baptism, and ecumenical tradition. Simply replacing them with functional descriptions such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” may unintentionally suggest that each divine person performs only one task.
A more careful approach retains the historic Trinitarian formula where it is doctrinally or sacramentally central while expanding surrounding language. For example:
Blessed be the holy Trinity, one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the fountain of life, the Word of grace, and the breath of love.
The church can also teach explicitly that Father and Son name a relationship within Christian revelation; they do not assert that the divine nature is male. Jesus’ historical identity as a Jewish man should not be erased, but neither should Jesus’ maleness be treated as evidence that men resemble God more fully than women or nonbinary people do.
Precision and inclusivity need not be enemies.
Approach Scripture with transparency and care
Churches should avoid silently rewriting biblical passages in ways that conceal historical realities or change the author’s argument. Instead, they can choose translations attentive to inclusive language and provide brief explanation where necessary.
A responsible process includes several questions:
Is the original reference specific or generic? If a passage addresses all believers, contemporary inclusive language may clarify its scope. If it describes a group of men, retaining gender specificity may be historically important.
Is a metaphor central to the passage? Replacing every gendered image can weaken the text. The aim should be interpretation, not flattening.
Does the proposed wording alter doctrine or literary meaning? Inclusive revision should preserve theological relationships, narrative details, and poetic force.
Would a note or sermon explanation serve better than an alteration? Sometimes the congregation needs to hear the text’s difficulty rather than have it removed.
Is the translation suitable for proclamation? A technically accurate sentence may still be cumbersome when read aloud. Worship language must be speakable and memorable.
Congregations might compare several recent Bible translations, consult original-language resources when possible, and develop a written policy for readings, bulletins, preaching, and education.
Practical strategies for worship leaders
Churches can make meaningful changes without producing strained or repetitive language.
Recast sentences
Repeatedly saying “God … God … God” to avoid pronouns can sound awkward. Often the whole sentence can be recast.
Instead of:
God sent his Son so that men might know him.
Consider:
God sent the Son so that all people might know divine love.
Or, depending on the passage:
In Jesus Christ, God came among us so that the world might know God’s saving love.
Use second-person prayer
Direct address often reduces the need for gendered pronouns.
Instead of:
We praise God because he has shown his mercy.
Use:
We praise you, O God, for you have shown us mercy.
This is not only inclusive; it is also more clearly prayerful.
Alternate scriptural images
Do not force multiple images into every prayer. Rather, plan across the church year so that the congregation hears a wide range of biblical language. Advent, Lent, Easter, Pentecost, baptism, funerals, and ordinary Sundays each provide opportunities to recover neglected images.
Revise human references first
The easiest and least controversial starting point is language about the congregation and humanity. Use people, disciples, siblings in Christ, beloved, ancestors, and children of God when those terms express the intended meaning.
Examine hymnody as well as prose
Hymns may contain generic masculine language, exclusive assumptions, or an unvarying masculine depiction of God. When copyright permits, churches may select authorized inclusive versions. When alteration is not permitted—or would damage meter, rhyme, theology, or artistic integrity—it is better to choose another hymn than to improvise poorly.
Consider visual and performative language
Inclusivity is not accomplished only by editing pronouns. Ask:
Who presides, reads, preaches, sings, and serves?
Whose experiences appear in sermons?
What do sanctuary art and educational materials imply about God and holiness?
Are women and gender-diverse people visible as bearers of theological wisdom?
Does the church’s language affirm people while its leadership structures exclude them?
Words are most credible when they correspond to communal practice.
A sample revision
A traditional prayer might read:
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, you love all men and call them to be your sons. Help each man to serve his brothers.
A more inclusive version could be:
Almighty God, loving Parent of all, you embrace every person and call us your children. Help us to serve one another as siblings in your household.
A more metaphoric version might be:
Holy God, source of our life, you gather every person into your household of grace. Teach us to recognize one another as beloved siblings and to serve with compassion.
Each version makes choices. Parent broadens a familial image; source of our life shifts to a different metaphor; children and siblings make the communal scope explicit. No single revision should become mandatory in every setting. The church’s task is to choose language intentionally.
Lead change pastorally
Language reform can evoke strong emotions because familiar words are tied to memory, identity, music, and experiences of God. Leaders should neither dismiss those attachments nor allow familiarity to end the conversation.
A constructive process might include:
forming a small group of clergy, musicians, educators, and lay members;
studying biblical images for God;reading Ramshaw and other liturgical resources;
reviewing bulletins, prayers, hymns, and educational materials;
identifying generic masculine language referring to people;
introducing changes gradually and explaining them;
inviting feedback, especially from those most affected by exclusionary language;
reviewing the policy after a full liturgical year.
The tone matters. Leaders can explain that inclusive language is not an accusation against previous generations. Language changes, and words that once sounded generic may no longer function that way. The church is continually responsible for making the gospel intelligible and truthful in its own time.
Avoid common pitfalls
Several practices can weaken the effort:
Mechanical substitution: Replacing words without attending to context can distort meaning.
Eliminating all imagery: Fear of gendered language can produce abstractions that are technically safe but spiritually lifeless.
Treating one new term as sufficient: Replacing every instance of Father with Parent merely exchanges one dominant word for another.
Erasing difficult texts: Inclusive interpretation should not conceal patriarchy or other forms of injustice within biblical history.
Ignoring nonbinary people: “Men and women” is more inclusive than “men,” but it may still imply that everyone fits one of two categories.
Changing sacramental formulas casually: Baptismal and Trinitarian language requires doctrinal, denominational, and ecumenical care.
Imposing change without formation: Congregations are more likely to receive new language when leaders explain its scriptural and theological basis.
Language as an act of hospitality
Inclusive language is not merely a concession to contemporary etiquette. It is a way for the church to practice its conviction that every person bears God’s image and is addressed by the gospel. Expansive language for God also protects a central theological truth: the living God exceeds every human category.
Ramshaw’s formulation provides a wise summary of the task. Christian language should remain metaphoric—biblical, poetic, embodied, and evocative—while becoming inclusive enough to say what the church actually means. The answer to narrow language is not colorless language, but richer language: language shaped by Scripture’s many images, disciplined by theology, attentive to human dignity, and alive to the mystery of God.
Reference
Gail Ramshaw, Liturgical Language: Keeping It Metaphoric, Making It Inclusive (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996).