Creating Accessible Worship
Language is a huge issue within progressive communities of faith. A dozen or so years ago, gender exclusivity was the biggest language problem the church was facing and many hymns, prayers, and sermons were rewritten to be more gender inclusive. But what do we do when almost everything we say, pray and sing about points us to ancient images and beliefs that we no longer hold as ultimately true? Gender inclusivity, in comparison, was a cake-walk.
The answer then: Go slowly. Go very slowly ……
The following are guidelines for the preparation of worship services that seek to get past the problems that our traditions present. A study guide will be available in the near future to assist you in working through these items in your community of faith.
It is important that concepts and ideas presented not make claims that cannot be substantiated beyond personal experience; for instance, God answering prayer, angels watching over someone, the historical accuracy of biblical events or stories, the existence of spiritual realms such as heaven either before or after life, etc.
Please feel free to submit items for posting here on the site. We recognize that many prepare worship resources for use in contexts where criteria such as those you will find here are not established as a norm and that materials used in those contexts may not meet these guidelines. Should they not meet the guidelines, please edit them for use here prior to submitting them as we do not have the human resources to do that editing work ourselves at this point. We regret that materials submitted that do not meet these guidelines will not be posted.
Language useful in progressive worship experiences would be:
a) Non-liturgical language – leaving behind formal ceremonial formats, scripted formats, scripted sentiments, requirements for people to read out loud things they may not understand, much less believe.
b) Non-theistic language – a theistic view of God requires theistic language; a non-theistic understanding of the divine requires new forms and images. It is easiest for people to relate to an understanding of the Divine that is personified. Balancing that almost-subliminal urge with the need to get beyond stereotypical images for God is very difficult but absolutely necessary.
c) Non-creedal language – expressions in word and symbols which do not readily connect with the usage and experience of people today is not helpful any longer.
d) Non-cultish language, images, etc. Words requiring explanation, and more importantly, un-explaining (disconnecting from the old meanings, i.e., “this used to mean and to thousands and millions still means, but now we want it to mean…”).
e) Images that resonate with the ordinary everyday experiences of people in the natural world of personal experiences – with themselves, with others, with the planet, etc.
f) Images of the divine that affirm human dignity, inherent, not given by or dependent upon God or God’s forgiveness.
g) Images of the divine that are a point of reference for orienting human life for meaning and value; helping us identify meaning in life and the value-base that can enable positive personal and shared living – the human, right living, right relating, respect, justice, love, peace, etc.
h) Images that help create a counter-theology, counter-ideology to the unhelpful theology of the past.
i) Images that reflect the diversity of spirituality – using flexible language instead of rigid religious terms – teaching that spirituality is about ordinary life and the way it is lived, not about something extra added to life.
j) Images that move away from human constructions that have been taken as universal and good for everyone, and focusing instead on local expressions, for ordinary life of the people living here now.
