“Do No Harm”: One Congregation’s Process of Revising Liturgical Language

Heather Gottas Moore and Stephanie A. Budwey

Introduction 

Life within the baptismal covenant for Christians in the Wesleyan tradition, including United Methodists, is to be governed by John Wesley’s three general rules: do no harm, do good, and attend upon the ordinances of God.¹ The order is not incidental. One cannot engage in acts of grace—doing good—until one has turned away (repented) from sin—doing harm. Liturgical scholars have brought to our attention the harm words can do to members of marginalized communities, particularly the LGBTQIA2S+ community.² Several traditions, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church (TEC), the Mennonite Church Canada, and Mennonite Church USA, have attempted recently to address this problem in revisions to their liturgical and congregational song texts. 

Liturgical language has the power to heal but also to harm, and part of queering worship is ensuring that worship is a place where LGBTQIA2S+ people are able to flourish and experience liturgies of livability instead of having liturgical violence inflicted on them.³ In practice, this means that all aspects of worship—including preaching, visual art, prayers, and songs—recognize the existence of LGBTQIA2S+ people, assert that they are made in the image of God, and celebrate the diversity of God’s creation.⁴ This article discusses the process used at St. Stephen United Methodist Church in their endeavor to queer the liturgical language of their community, providing examples from this process—including a congregational song, a Scripture passage, and a prayer from the Sunday liturgy—and offering some takeaways for consideration for other communities who might want to engage in the process of queering liturgical language and draw on the gifts of ecumenical resources to establish guidelines in their own context for language used in public worship. 

About St. Stephen United Methodist Church

St. Stephen United Methodist Church (UMC) is a small, suburban, multi-generational congregation located east of Dallas, Texas.⁵ It is not uncommon in the southern United States to find three- and four-generation families involved in the ministries of a church. Even as one of these churches, St. Stephen is a unique congregation in the geographical area. An integral part of racial integration in the local school district during the church’s first decade, St. Stephen UMC has been rooted in justice and equality since its inception. As the first United Methodist congregation in North Texas to affiliate with the Reconciling Ministries Network⁶—a network of LGBTQIA2S+ affirming churches in The United Methodist Church—St. Stephen has worked for many years for the full participation of their LGBTQIA2S+ siblings in the life and work of the church. At its leadership retreat in 2018, the church council identified the following values at the root of the ethos of St. Stephen UMC: love, justice, human dignity, openness, worship, community, and perseverance. With this background, St. Stephen was the perfect place to study the process as church leaders evaluated, edited, and reshaped its liturgical language to further live into its identity as an inclusive church. 

The Process

The nine-member team invited to this work was ready and willing to dive into the task at hand. Though predominantly white, the group varied in age, education, socioeconomic status, sexuality, and gender identity. Some were born and raised in Texas, others were transplants from Florida, California, and Kansas, all bringing a variety of valuable experiences and perspectives to the conversation. The lead pastor had identified a leader to guide the team through the conversations and met with him to establish a shared vision and mission for the work. Through a three-phase process, the team would (1) consider portions of several readings as a part of their education and discernment; (2) evaluate their own language use, develop samples of inclusive liturgical work, and draft policies regarding inclusive language for their congregation; and (3) design a plan to implement the changes and consider the implications of the changes made. While this would be a working group, it was important to the team to recognize that this was a process of discernment, which meant the team would be doing more listening—to the Holy Spirit—than they did talking. As such, the group took on the name Vox: Listening for the Liturgical Voice of the St. Stephen United Methodist Community.

In mid-February of 2023, the Vox team met and discussed the proposed readings and a plan for going forward. They received copies of the materials and determined they would meet monthly and work from a shared digital document. During phase one, Vox read portions of Stephanie Budwey’s Religion and Intersex: Perspectives from Science, Law, Culture, and Theology⁷ and the second edition of Ruth Duck’s Worship for the Whole People of God,⁸ making notes of what stood out to them or seemed important and necessary for the work they were doing in the shared document. Budwey’s chapter looks at intersex from liturgical perspectives, including the experiences of intersex people in Christian worship and how some have felt excluded by the use of binary language. This example of exclusion leads to a discussion of the need for inclusive, expansive, and emancipatory language that moves beyond the binary, including in congregational song. The chapter also considers the notions of liturgies that contribute to the flourishing of intersex people (i.e., liturgies of livability) and those that do not, thereby inflicting liturgical violence. They also read the section “Expanding Our Liturgical Language” from Duck’s chapter on “Vivid Words for Worship.” She touches on multiple aspects of inclusive and expansive language, including the topics of gender (e.g., the use of the generic masculine to refer to all humans, such as “man” or “brothers”), ability (e.g., the metaphorical use of “blind” or “deaf” as being sinful or lacking understanding), and racism (e.g., the metaphorical use of “dark” as evil/sinful and “light” as good/pure). Duck also considers the challenges and complexities around naming God, the issues with only using masculine language for God, and different strategies to achieve balance in naming God and the Trinity.

In March 2023, Vox gathered again after having read Budwey’s and Duck’s works. For the Vox team, it was apparent that they needed to do some creative work in developing adapted versions of Scripture, commonly used liturgical texts, and favorite songs. The team acknowledged that the readings took time to consume and needed additional clarification. After some clarification, the team began to list ways in which they felt an inclusive language policy might look at St. Stephen in practice. Among the ideas suggested were amending congregational songs and anthems to have more inclusive language, intentionally rotating signifiers for addressing the congregation and roles for worship leaders, expanding descriptions for God to include feminine and gender-neutral language, and replacing terms like “Lord” and “kingdom.”

The nature of this work is both intellectually and spiritually challenging, even for those who we consider theologically astute and have a deep desire to be open, inclusive, and welcoming. As such, it became apparent the process is less of a lex credendi, lex orandi, lex vivendi linear process, easily outlined in three phases, but more of a lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi cycle, where a community of people embody and pray the possibilities continually, shaping and reshaping what they believe, in order to create a policy by which to live, thus creating a perichoretic process whereby there is a mutual interplay between these aspects.⁹

Resources

Throughout the process, the Vox team engaged diverse models for language guidelines from multiple denominations, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in their 2013 hymnal Glory to God,¹⁰ the Episcopal Church (TEC) as part of their process of liturgical and Prayer Book revision,¹¹ and the Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA in their 2020 hymnal Voices Together¹² in order to help them refine the liturgical voice of St. Stephen UMC. 

The Glory to God hymnal includes Appendix 2, “A Statement on Language,” ratified by the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song in 2009.¹³ After acknowledging the power of language in worship—particularly how it can include or exclude people—the statement points to the theological framework of salvation history that was used for this hymnal to reflect “the full extent of the biblical narrative and also the full array of biblical language used for God—even if that leads us to use words and imagery that go beyond our natural comfort.”¹⁴ In discussing language for humans, the statement speaks of moving away from the use of stereotypical language and the “generic masculine” for humans. In discussing language for God, the statement calls for balance by using many metaphors for God—“who is wholly other and beyond gender”—while explicitly retaining the use of the word “Lord” and the Trinitarian language of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.¹⁵

The Episcopal Church passed a resolution in 2018, a “Plan for the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer,” which led to the formation of the Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision.¹⁶ Part of their work was creating “Guidelines for Expansive and Inclusive Language.”¹⁷ They begin by stating the importance of language and the goal “to maximize rather than erase language from our liturgical lexicon.”¹⁸ The guidelines then discuss expansive language (language about/for God) and the need for many metaphors for God because “all of humanity is created in the image of God.”¹⁹ Inclusive language (language about/for humanity) similarly “should reflect the diversity of all humankind” while also highlighting that binary language can exclude those who are nonbinary.²⁰ After pointing to the problems with certain metaphors—for example, those which imply light is good and dark is bad—the document concludes with a reminder that while we can never “fully comprehend or completely imagine” God, God is revealed to us through language.²¹

The Mennonite Church Canada and Mennonite Church USA have done tremendous work in thoughtfully considering the topic of language in their 2020 hymnal, Voices Together. The plan was for Vox to read three pieces related to the hymnal. The first, “Expansive Language in Voices Together: Gendered Images of God,” discusses the decision to use expansive language for God, the process that was used in making choices about language for the hymnal, and the incredibly helpful appendices from Voices Together: Worship Leader Edition, “Expansive and Inclusive Language in Worship” and “Scriptural Ways to Address God in Worship.”²² The second article, “Our Journey with Just and Faithful Language: The Story of a Twenty-First Century Mennonite Hymnal and Worship Book,” was written by Sarah Kathleen Johnson, worship resources editor for the hymnal, and Adam M. L. Tice, text editor for the hymnal.²³ This article discusses the case-by-case approach taken in considering the text of each song, their theological commitments to “who God is, who we are, and who God calls us to become,”²⁴ the document “Aspirations for Language Use,” and three case studies that show how these guidelines were put into practice in the creation of the hymnal. The third article, “Lord as a Metaphor for God in the Voices Together Hymnal,” was written by Sarah Kathleen Johnson and discusses the metaphorical use of “Lord” in the hymnal as well as its merits, drawbacks, and ways in which it was unchanged, juxtaposed, interpreted, or changed in the hymnal.²⁵ These documents all point to the power of language to “shape how we understand God, one another, and the world around us,” as well as the need to be mindful of such issues as race, ethnicity, class, ability, gender, and sexuality in language.²⁶

Examples

We will now explore three examples from the process at St. Stephen UMC: a congregational song, a Scripture passage, and a prayer from the Sunday liturgy. These three examples offer ways to consider how to queer liturgical language in that they disrupt normative understandings of and language for God while also striving to be inclusive of LGBTQIA2S+ people.

Congregational Song 

The congregational song “For Everyone Born” exemplifies not only the reality of how language changes over time but also the need for the work of evaluating and editing liturgical language similar to what is being done at St. Stephen UMC. Originally written in 1998 by New Zealand hymnwriter Shirley Erena Murray (1931–2020), this text speaks to the need for all to have “a place at the table.”²⁷ However, as time has passed, the understanding of human sexuality and gender has changed, and therefore, many have found this text—that was originally meant to be inclusive—to be exclusive. As Dan Damon and Eileen Johnson describe,

Murray’s idea and intention was to write a text that imagines all people at the great feast. She thought she had listed everyone, only to realize that some groups had not been named. So she later wrote another verse for gay and straight people. But this binary naming still leaves out portions of the human race. . . . When we try to list the people invited to the great feast, we inevitably leave someone out.²⁸

For example, the binary language of woman and man leaves out those who are nonbinary, and the binary language of gay and straight leaves out those who are bisexual or asexual. As a result, “[m]any people were seeing the need to alter this text.”²⁹

In 2022, Dan Damon was asked by Hope Publishing to revise the text because Murray passed away in 2020, and so he worked with Carl Daw Jr. to create an updated, nonbinary version.³⁰ The original language of “woman and man” became “all who share life,” and the original language of “gay and straight” became “all who have breath.” In the article “‘For everyone born’: A Hymnwriter Struggles to Address All People,” Damon describes the process and email exchanges he had with Daw Jr. in considering different alternatives, just as the community at St. Stephen is wrestling with questions about liturgical language with the goal of being more inclusive. These conversations and Murray’s text all point to the tension between the importance of naming specific groups of people that are left out, made invisible, and erased in liturgical language—for example, in Murray’s original version, her use of the words “gay” and “straight” was incredibly prophetic at the time—and the desire to use language that truly includes everyone.

This song is a favorite within the St. Stephen community. Unsurprisingly, the revised version received mixed reviews. Ally members of the community deeply held the belief that “for gay and for straight” is a prophetic statement, and they bristled at the idea of replacing it. Even as a progressive congregation, their social location contributes to a sort of blinded allyship, clouding their ability to see how the language of inclusion has advanced over time—reflecting newer understandings of sexuality and gender—and, therefore, the language of community favorites constantly needs reflection and revision. 

Of course, it is human nature for any congregation to bristle at a more inclusive model. As was seen in the response at St. Stephen UMC to the revised version of “For Everyone Born,” and the adapted Lord’s Prayer options, the deeply rooted fears of change can impact even a “progressive” congregation’s willingness to see a need for work toward being more inclusive. This may be a space where congregations who are new to the work have the advantage. Progressive congregations, blinded by their own allyship, are more susceptible to the misunderstanding that they have “arrived” and have no more work to do regarding inclusion. At the same time, it is important to recognize the concern of moving from particularities (gay/straight, woman/man) to universality (all who have breath, all who share life). The former are binaries that leave out other marginalized particularities, and the latter are so broad and universal that the lyric seems to lose its prophetic edge. This is why it is important to keep the conversation rooted in the why of the work—all being made in God’s image—and allow space to move between lex orandi, lex credendi, and lex vivendi with a reasonable amount of fluidity.

Because all humans are made in God’s image, liturgical language needs to reflect the diversity of humanity. As Budwey says, “a limited vision of God leads to a limited image of humanity.”³¹ Additionally, it is important for the people doing this work to remember that all language for God is metaphorical, along with the limitation of language to express the infinite mystery of God. One way to address this is to employ Sallie McFague’s “piling up of images” strategy so that throughout the liturgy, multiple images of God are used (feminine, masculine, and nongendered). McFague writes that “many metaphors and models are necessary, that a piling up of images is essential, both to avoid idolatry and to attempt to express the richness and variety of the divine-human relationship.”³² This strategy is also reflected in some of the readings discussed, including the Mennonite Worship and Song Committee’s “Expansive Language in Voices Together: Gendered Images of God,” where they ask, “Are traditional male terms such as Lord and kingdom balanced with other expressions?” and then provide the appendix “Scriptural Ways to Address God in Worship,” which offers examples of how to “address God in prayer in ways that are anchored in Scripture yet expand our language and images of God.”³³ Resources like these are incredibly helpful in reminding people of the diversity of language used to address God in Scripture while also offering ways to broaden their imaginations and the language used to address God in prayer.

Scripture

Beginning in the summer of 2022, the lead pastor of St. Stephen UMC began adjusting the Hebrew Bible readings, removing the word “Lord” and replacing it with Adonai. Informed by the resources offered here, as well as The Book of Offices and Services of The Order of Saint Luke, the lead pastor felt it was congruent with the congregation’s ethos to make this adjustment without significant additional consultation with the congregation.³⁴

Adonai is the original Hebrew substitution for the Tetragrammaton, and while its meaning is literally “Lord,” its genealogy is conceived within the reverent and covenantal relationship of God and Israel. When Adonai is translated into Greek, Kyrios is used; in Latin, Dominus. Unlike Adonai, the genealogies of Kyrios and Dominus find their roots in places such as feudal lords and earthly sovereigns such as Caesar. As such, they bring that meaning with them, which Adonai does not, as pointed out by Johnson in her article discussing the use of “Lord” in the Voices Together hymnal.³⁵ From a trauma-informed perspective, as we learn more about the extent to which the church has caused and perpetuated harm, words like “Lord” and “Kingdom” are artifacts of language that are foreign and inaccessible to those who have suffered harm by and through the church as well as those who grew up outside of the direct influence of the church. An example of this shift from “Lord” to Adonai can be found in The Book of Offices and Services of The Order of Saint Luke in their adaptation of Psalm 23, using Adonai in place of “Lord,” and “You” in place of “He.”³⁶

Liturgical Prayer

Similarly, the lead pastor began making changes in liturgical language throughout the worship life of St. Stephen UMC. Informed again by the ethos of the congregation, the Lord’s Prayer seemed like a natural place to start since the congregation had already modernized the language once in the church’s short history, changing “thy” to “your.” In March 2023, a seemingly simple shift from “Our Father,” to “Our God,” was made. There was some pushback about this change at St. Stephen UMC. The pastor received feedback from those who support inclusive language but felt that “God” was still masculine and suggested maybe “Our Shepherd” or “Our Pastor” might be better alternatives. Interestingly, during the 2023 Eastertide sermon series, the lead pastor offered a strikingly different version of the prayer, adapted for Marcia McFee’s Emerge series, replacing not only “Our Father” with “Chrysalis of Creation,” but much of the body of the prayer as well.³⁷ Unlike the earlier version, this new Lord’s Prayer received no direct feedback. It is feasible that because the sermon series included the imagery of a chrysalis and metamorphosis throughout the series, the congregation, including the aforementioned congregant, was more accommodating to this temporary shift in language. 

Because of the response—or lack thereof—regarding the temporary change in the Lord’s Prayer, the Vox team decided to survey the congregation to gather data on the comfortability and thresholds regarding inclusive language using different adaptations of the Lord’s Prayer. Along with assessing the congregation members’ opinions on the current liturgical voice of the community, the survey included five sample prayers with instructions to read each prayer out loud before completing the survey questions for that prayer.³⁸ The Vox team brought together eight possible selections and curated them down to five, including two prayers written by members of the team, one written by a ministry intern in the early 2000s, and the alternate version from the Night Prayer service in A New Zealand Prayer Book.³⁹

Those surveyed were asked to assess the current liturgical voice of the community using the following Likert scale:

— not inclusive
— not inclusive enough and needs to be changed
— inclusive, but there are a few places where it needs to be changed
— fully inclusive, but there are a few places it could be changed
— fully inclusive and does not need to be changed

With each adapted prayer, the member was asked two questions:

First, select all that apply:

— I am uncomfortable with the names used for God.
— I am not represented in the language used in this prayer.
— I cannot recognize the original prayer in this version.
— I am comfortable with the names used for God.
— I am represented in the language used in this prayer.
— I can recognize the original prayer in this version.

Second, measure comfortability:

— I am uncomfortable with this version and would not want it used in our services.
— I am uncomfortable with this version, but I would not be upset if we used it occasionally.
— I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with this version.
— I am comfortable with this version and would be comfortable with its occasional use.
— I am comfortable with this version and would be comfortable with it being our standard version.

Upon analysis of the data, 66 percent of those surveyed felt the current liturgical voice of the community was inclusive or fully inclusive, but warranted some changes, while 31 percent felt that the current liturgical voice was inclusive enough and did not need to be changed. Interestingly, the respondents’ feelings about the current liturgical voice did not significantly impact their consideration of alternate adaptations. 

For all five adapted versions of the prayer, there was a positive correlation between those who were less comfortable with the language used for God and their feeling less comfortable with the version being used in worship at any consistency. Additionally, how closely the reader perceived the adaptation to be to the traditional version of the prayer impacted the comfortability of the reader regarding the prayer’s use in worship. Only six people—12 percent of individuals surveyed—still indicated they would be comfortable using a prayer where they could not recognize the traditional prayer. Overwhelmingly, there was a positive correlation between the readers’ answers to the first question and their answers to the second question: 95 percent of those surveyed who were more comfortable with the names used for God, recognized the traditional prayer, or felt represented by the language used in the prayer were more comfortable using it in worship on occasion. Conversely, only 34 percent of those surveyed who were uncomfortable with the names used for God, unable to recognize the traditional prayer, or felt they were not represented by the language used in the prayer were comfortable with even the occasional use of the alternative version offered. 

Concluding Thoughts

Work like this does not come without significant complexities. The process of queering worship and creating liturgies of livability is an imperative task that demands careful attention to what is being conveyed about LGBTQIA2S+ people—both consciously and unconsciously—through preaching, visual art, prayers, and songs. While there may be common goals of inclusion across denominations, there will be different ways of putting it into practice related to questions such as who gets to make decisions as to what changes are allowed or not due to the different denominational structures and polities. Within the one denomination observed here—The United Methodist Church—there could be a range of desire for engaging with these questions as well as comfort level with inclusive and expansive language. Even within one congregation, the perceived need for work like this will vary as well. This speaks to why it is so important for congregations who feel called to this work to take the time necessary to include their community in the conversation throughout the whole process through various tools, including, but not limited to, surveys such as the one used at St. Stephen. While it is unlikely any congregation will reach 100 percent agreement, the survey at St. Stephen UMC shows that people are willing to be in conversation, consider the experience of others, come to a consensus, and lean into any discomfort they may have on behalf of the larger community—especially those on the margins.

A church community’s liturgical language is both universal and particular. There is no one-size-fits-all model for communities that are looking to revise their particular liturgical language and identify their unique liturgical voice, and yet, there must be some universality in order for it to resonate as a part of the whole church. As seen through the process at St. Stephen UMC, the community must be willing to do the hard work to grow and change, leaning into the discomfort of “new” and finding the ways in which queering liturgical language offers healing to people who have experienced harm by traditional language in the past. A community’s engagement in a dialogue about liturgical language can lead to spiritual growth and change within the perichoretic relationships of the Christian liturgical traditions. As such, liturgical and ecumenical openness can heal bodies, hearts, and communities through mutual sharing and learning as denominations grapple with the topic of liturgical language. 

Notes

1. United Methodist Church, The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (Nashville, TN: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2016), 54.

2. Stephanie A. Budwey, Religion and Intersex: Perspectives from Science, Law, Culture, and Theology (London and New York: Routledge, 2023), 168–214.

3. Stephanie A. Budwey, “Liturgies of Livability or Liturgical Violence: What Kind of Space Is Christian Congregational Song Creating for LGBTQIA2S+ and Nonbinary People?” Religions, 14, no. 11 (2023): 1411, https:/doi.org/10.3390/rel14111411. 

4. Budwey, “Liturgies of Livability or Liturgical Violence.”

5. See “St. Stephen UMC,” accessed October 9, 2023, https://www.ststephenumctx.org/. The Rev. Heather Gottas Moore serves the St. Stephen community as the Minister of Human Sexuality alongside her spouse, the Rev. Dr. Geoffrey C. Moore. Throughout this process, the Rev. Gottas Moore has served as an observer as the Vox team read and discussed the liturgical voice of the St. Stephen community.

6. For more information, see “Reconciling Ministries Network,” accessed October 9, 2023, https://rmnetwork.org/.

7. Budwey, Religion and Intersex, 168–214.

8. Ruth C. Duck, Worship for the Whole People of God, 2nd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021), 108–17.

9. We are grateful to the Rev. Geoffrey C. Moore, PhD for this helpful insight.

10. David Eicher, ed., Glory to God (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013).

11. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, “Reports to the 80th General Convention” (2021), accessed October 9, 2023, https://extranet.generalconvention.org/staff/files/download/29991.

12. Bradley Kauffman, ed., Voices Together (Harrisonburg, VA: MennoMedia, 2020).

13. Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song, “A Statement on Language,” in Glory to God, 928–30.

14. Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song, “A Statement on Language,” 928.

15. Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song, 929–30.

16. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, “Reports to the 80th General Convention,” 2–5.

17. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, 21–24.

18. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, 21.

19. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, 22.

20. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, 23.

21. Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision, 24.

22. Katie Graber, Sarah Kathleen Johnson, and Adam M. L. Tice, “Expansive Language in Voices Together: Gendered Images of God” (Harrisonburg, VA: MennoMedia, 2020), accessed October 9, 2023, http://voicestogetherhymnal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Expansive-Language-in-VT-2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR21Er7NlOsuBBCyGw6UYS_JWS9z7o1obDRGvwVlp-QD2jceTQceIlhM6sw.

23. Sarah Kathleen Johnson and Adam M. L. Tice, “Our Journey with Just and Faithful Language: The Story of a Twenty-First Century Mennonite Hymnal and Worship Book,” The Hymn: A Journal of Congregational Song 73, no. 2 (Spring 2022): 17–27.

24. Johnson and Tice, 18.

25. Sarah Kathleen Johnson, “Lord as a Metaphor for God in the Voices Together Hymnal,” Menno Snapshots, February 1, 2021, accessed October 9, 2023, https://www.mennoniteusa.org/menno-snapshots/lord-metaphor-voices-together-hymnal/.

26. Graber, Johnson, and Tice, “Expansive Language in Voices Together,” 6. 

27. Shirley Erena Murray, “For Everyone Born,” Hope Publishing, accessed October 9, 2023, https://www.hopepublishing.com/find-hymns-hw/hw9008_37.aspx#.

28. Daniel Charles Damon, FHS with Eileen M. Johnson, “‘For everyone born’: A Hymnwriter Struggles to Address All People,” The Hymn: A Journal of Congregational Song 74, no. 3 (Summer 2023): 32.

29. Damon and Johnson, 33.

30. Shirley Erena Murray, alt., “For Everyone Born,” Hope Publishing, accessed October 9, 2023, https://www.hopepublishing.com/find-hymns-hw/hw9159_16.aspx.

31. Budwey, Religion and Intersex, 139.

32. Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982), 20.

33. Graber, Johnson, and Tice, “Expansive Language in Voices Together,” 7–8.

34. Dwight W. Vogel, OSL, ed., The Book of Offices and Services of The Order of Saint Luke (Franklinville, NJ: OSL Publications, 2012), 294.

35. Johnson, “Lord as a Metaphor for God in the Voices Together Hymnal.”

36. Vogel, The Book of Offices and Services of The Order of Saint Luke, 294.

37. Marcia McFee, Emerge, Worship Design Studio, Eastertide 2023.

38. The anonymous survey was distributed to the entire St. Stephen UMC congregation (active members and visitors) through the church’s regular email program. The questions were written and curated by the Vox team. We were advised by the Vanderbilt Human Protections Program that IRB approval was not needed to use this data in this article as it is a case study and is therefore considered non-research.

39. The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, A New Zealand Prayer Book/ He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa (Auckland, New Zealand: The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, 1989), 181, accessed October 13, 2023, https://anglicanprayerbook.nz/.