This past week for chapel at the hospital, my CPE Supervisor led us in a lectio divina of the 23rd Psalm. She then played a CD of Bobby McFerrin’s setting of the 23rd Psalm to music. It’s quite beautiful, and may cause you to think of the Psalm in a new way. Just click on the play button below the lyrics to hear the song.
The Lord is my shepherd, I have all I need.
She makes me lie down in green meadows, beside the still waters she will lead.
She restores my soul, she rights my wrongs,
She leads me in a path of good things and fills my heart with songs.
Even though I walk through a dark and weary land,
there is no other that can shake me. She has said she won’t forsake me. I am in her hand.
She sets a table before me in the presence of my foes.
She anoints my head with oil and my cup overflows.
Surely, surely, goodness and kindness will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in her house forever, forever and ever.
Glory be to our Mother and Daughter and to the Holy of Holies.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.
Amen.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The PTS Choir sang this at a concert this spring. Apparently, it was quite controversial, not (only) because “she” was used as a pronoun for God, but because “he” was so diligently erased from all the other pieces that were performed.
Another controversial aspect was replacing Holy Spirit with Holy of Holies.
Adam, I’m curious…was this a staff chapel service or one for the entire hospital community? I know that in my Pastoral Care and Theology classes we talked a lot about changing the lens with which we read scripture and trying to ‘see’ theology from the view point of those we were serving. That said, we also talked about why it may not be appropriate to move too far from the tradiational languauge in times of trials. Meaning, if you are working with a specific family who is comfortable with female language for God you would go there. If, though, you are working with a ‘walk in’ crowd of people who you know are in stress you wouldn’t add to their struggle/pain/discomfort by wavering far from their tradition.
Thoughts?
Bridget, every day at 1pm the hospital has Chapel – it is a multi-faith chapel, so our chapel services need to be very open and inclusive to any who might enter.
We are allowed to do things from within our own traditions, but are encouraged to be very clear about that.
I can see what you mean though. Sure. If an elderly couple come and ask me to pray the 23rd Psalm with them, I will probably use the KJV language I grew up with to pray with them. But I think there may be some who are moved by this – especially the music.
Adam-I didn’t mean that as a criticism, I just wanted to tell you what my frame of reference was and see how you all dealt with it. I’m constantly amazed by how different things are from place to place. Maybe they should make us re-do seminary anytime we move more than 500 miles from the school we graduated from. Or maybe not ;-)
I totally understand the value of inclusive language and of exploring (and in many cases reviving) feminine metaphors for God. That said, I wonder if it is productive to completely eschew any alignment with masculinity/males like this song seems to do. I guess you could say doing so forms but a small step in overcoming decades of patriarchal religion, but I’d hate to see the whole spectrum of gender fail to be recognized in understanding the divine. (Both extremes seem like making God in our own image to me, which, of course, is as difficult to avoid as it is wrong.) Perhaps McFerrin views the song not as a stand-alone interpretation of the 23rd Psalm, but as being one part of a polyphony?
You’re right — I can’t imagine my elderly (or even not-so-elderly) relatives feeling comfortable with it. It certainly is beautiful and thought-provoking, though, and “thought-provoking” and “beautiful” are pretty much synonymous with “good” in my vocabularly. All the same, though, I’m glad that you’re sensitive to the fact that there is a place for productive discomfort and a place for making people comfortable so that they can grieve well.
And now “god” has been even further reduced to our own image. Fantastic. Lets keep it going! That way we can really help people in need!
/Next up, the travesty of referring to Jesus Christ as “unique”.
Adam, sometimes I really wonder what you are thinking.
I think that we seem to have a skewed understanding of inclusiveness. Inclusiveness that requires that we alter our views of truth (and yes, I understand that God is not a “man” in the sense that we understand the word, but I am going off of biblical language, and the biblical portrayal of the trinity–Father, Son, Spirit), and adapt our language, will not be effective. Ultimately this type of “inclusiveness” will achieve no purpose because the message that it communicates is an empty one. We should not be concerned that the language of our faith might offend some. The message of the Bible is inherently offensive in what it requires of humanity.
In short, the gospel is inclusive in the sense that people from all tongues, tribes, and nations will be a part of the body, but it is not inclusive in the sense that we can fuse other beliefs into an altered version of the gospel’s truth and expect it to have any real effect.
I’m no biblical scholar but isn’t biblical language at best proto-trinitarian, and aren’t there plenty of female images for God in the Bible? Including, but not limited to, the association of Wisdom (Sophia) and God in texts such as Proverbs 8?
And I would certainly disagree that the inclusiveness communicates an empty message. It communicates a message that God can be imaged appropriately in both male and female images. How is that empty?
And if exclusively male language of God offends some, it might (just possibly) be for a good reason.
Adam, forgive my first comment on your blog for being so strident. This topic clearly touches a nerve with me: for background, I’ll simply say that I was once told, in all serious, “Isn’t God a man?” It was meant to be a rhetorical question.
The point that I was trying to make is that gender-inclusive language is a smaller part of the larger idea of “inclusive” faith. Religious faith, real religious faith to any god, not just the Christian God, is by nature exclusive.
Imagine a man trying to talk his wife into an “inclusive” relationship; one where he would include aspects and parts, physical and emotional, of many other women into his marriage all in an attempt to incorporate all of those “good things” into his marriage. Does that make good sense?
More importantly, as strongly as I believe in the power of language, I feel that such changes in language are merely empty gestures intended to make much of ourselves and our desires.
In spite of accusations to the contrary, exclusively adhering to specific religious beliefs does not make one close-minded. It should not at all limit one’s ability to love, befriend, talk to, or relate to people of other faiths. If it does so, then I would question the strength of such a faith. People will ultimately respect you more for standing firm in your beliefs than for swaying so easily towards what you think they want to hear.
With all due respect to some of the comments above, I would venture to say that perhaps putting too much faith in our own interpretation of scripture runs the risk of making God in our own image just as much as going overboard on the relevancy thing does. And while you can apply the “slippery-slope” image to say that inclusive language leads to universalism, I don’t think it HAS to. It certainly doesn’t lend that conclusion to my theology, though I’ll be the first to admit that my theology is probably fraught with inconsistancies. Aren’t we all fraught with inconsistancies? And after all, don’t most of us see ourselves settling down somewhere in the middle of a continuum, rather than slipping off a slope? I find it strange that so many people strive so hard to preserve binaries, when I don’t know a single “polarized” person.
Incidentally, I would join JTB in challenging the notion that female metaphors for God are a new thing. Besides the examples he/she mentioned, I’ve read some vibrant examples of this in the writings of medieval visionaries. I’m not saying we should treat these visions as on the same level of revelation as scripture, but I do think they deserve consideration.
If, as critics of the song seem to be willing to submit, God is not a man, then why is hearing God portrayed as posessing female qualities so disturbing? While the arrangement is beautiful, I’ll admit that the language is a little “out there” even for me. But if this portrayal might prove helpful or thought-provoking, isn’t it worth at least a listen?
I understand the inclusive language thing, but I think we should also consider the nature of the metaphor in which the gender is being assigned. Perhaps I am way wrong but I don’t think many women were shepherds…were they(please please forgive my ignorance)? Therefore God in this context is taking on a male role of caretaker. However, I think there are metaphors where God definitely takes on a feminine role as…perhaps CREATOR of life. Women are the conduit the means by which new life is created…absolutely. Is that not a feminine image of the Invisible? None of this is in consideration of the specific hearers but in the overall perception of God as male or female. Maybe we try too hard to make God female instead of letting him/her be all of life.
What a beautiful re-interpretation. Of course it’s not a literal translation from the Hebrew, but it’s quite stunning.
Just FYI the last two lines aren’t in the Hebrew, and Holy of Holies is a very traditional Jewish turn of phrase. Here’s a fairly literal interpretation of the Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2623.htm
Thanks for sharing this.
Disgusting, but not surprising given that we are in the end times and all sorts of abominations against The Lord will be tolerated. ” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living god.”
hey, i really like this. I’ve actually heard this Bobby McFerrin song before, at first i thought it was weird, but now that i’m into God’s feminine side, i like it.
Thanks for sharing this,especially being that this Sunday, April 13, 08 is considered Good Shepherd Sunday. I found this searching for the words to another song about the Shepherd, but stayed when I read what you wrote.