Episcopal diocese of Washington to drop male pronouns for God

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a rational point of view, they are contracting, not expanding, their image of God. God revealed an aspect of His nature as being masculine. By removing (or obscuring) that piece of revelation, you know less about God. But what would you expect - the whole Espicopal edifice is based on one thing - Henry VIII's loins.

Wrong. YOu are referring to the Anglican Church which is 85 million strong and the third largest Christian religion in the world. Episcopalians exist only in the United States and are no longer even in communion (thanks to Bishop Schori) with the Anglican Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people need a pronoun to feel loved by and included in Christ, they have much bigger issues with their faith. (By this I mean that I think this change is absolutely ridiculous, not that the change is warranted.)

Left ECUSA years ago and have never looked back. Too much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I say this as a woman who supports gay marriage, ordination of women, etc.

You get used to it. Faster than you might think. Changes to the liturgy that you know and feel connected to can feel like a part of yourself being torn up and thrown away.

But before you know it, the new liturgy becomes associated with everything you feel connected to.

I hated it when they modernized the language in our prayer books (all the "Thee"s and "Thy"s gone) because it felt like the poetry had been drained away. And I didn't like the move to gender-neutral language. But because I'm Jewish, I didn't have a million other options for congregations, and now I don't even notice it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next step: Drop God

Yes because obviously if God can't be masculine then he's not really God and not worth having.

Well, the Bible actually says God is our Father.

I can't speak to Greek, but Hebrew does not have a gender neutral word for "parent" . Its either av, or im. When discussing parents or ancestors generally, we use the masculine ("avot") may be used. Similarly for gendering of plural pronouns, children ("Bnei Israel" which is translated children of Israel, really means "sons of Israel" but the female "bnot" is used when females only are referred to, when its a mixed group of children or descendants, its "bnei")

But I suppose to Episcopalians the bible is really an English document

Well, modern Christians obviously read the Bible in their native translation. Of course Jesus would most likely have spoken Aramaic, which then was translated into Hebrew, and Greek, and on and on. Sadly, not many people take their study of theology far enough to get to the part where the linguistics and source theories are taught. For me that was in a Catholic college, but my siblings had no exposure to it.

This is an interesting article on the translation of the Lord's Prayer: http://aramaicnt.org/articles/the-lords-prayer-in-galilean-aramaic/ The Q writer (ascribed to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) seemed to use a word for 'father' more than the very different Gospel of John writers, who refer to Jesus as Logos (the word), and emphasizes the divinity much more. In John, Jesus only directly addresses God as "Father" once.

Er, I think you may be confused. The NT is written in Greek, and presumably Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and his words (other than the phrase eli, eli, lama sabacthani -itself a quotation from psalms) were translated by the gospel writers to Greek. But what part was translated into Hebrew? The Hebrew scriptures were written before the life of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a rational point of view, they are contracting, not expanding, their image of God. God revealed an aspect of His nature as being masculine. By removing (or obscuring) that piece of revelation, you know less about God. But what would you expect - the whole Espicopal edifice is based on one thing - Henry VIII's loins.

Wrong. YOu are referring to the Anglican Church which is 85 million strong and the third largest Christian religion in the world. Episcopalians exist only in the United States and are no longer even in communion (thanks to Bishop Schori) with the Anglican Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

Not accurate.

Also, don’t you have something better to do than to constantly shit talk TEC on here? Did you get kicked off the vestery or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people need a pronoun to feel loved by and included in Christ, they have much bigger issues with their faith. (By this I mean that I think this change is absolutely ridiculous, not that the change is warranted.)

Left ECUSA years ago and have never looked back. Too much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I say this as a woman who supports gay marriage, ordination of women, etc.

You get used to it. Faster than you might think. Changes to the liturgy that you know and feel connected to can feel like a part of yourself being torn up and thrown away.

But before you know it, the new liturgy becomes associated with everything you feel connected to.

I hated it when they modernized the language in our prayer books (all the "Thee"s and "Thy"s gone) because it felt like the poetry had been drained away. And I didn't like the move to gender-neutral language. But because I'm Jewish, I didn't have a million other options for congregations, and now I don't even notice it.

You do realize, of course, that the Hebrew second person singular does NOT have the overtones of formality that "thee" and "thou" have come to have (they did not have that originally either, which is why the King James translators used them). Biblical Hebrew, though more "poetical" than Mishnaic Hebrew, is still pretty direct and blunt - the overtones are even more so if you first learned Hebrew by learning modern Israeli Hebrew, and have an ear for Israeli speech. I once knew an Israeli who translated Shma Israel as "Listen Israel!" and he was not far off.

I am NOT fluent in any variety of Hebrew, but try to read scriptures/taanach and prayers in Hebrew as much as I can, as I find the actual flow of the actual Hebrew words to be both beautiful (well usually, not all of the liturgy) and to provide a more direct experience of Jewish spirituality, unmediated by the traditions of English language translation, or the (mostly gentile) cultural baggage of the English language. The Hebrew bible, especially works like Psalms (Tehillim) and prophets (Neviim) are among the first great products of our civilization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people need a pronoun to feel loved by and included in Christ, they have much bigger issues with their faith. (By this I mean that I think this change is absolutely ridiculous, not that the change is warranted.)

Left ECUSA years ago and have never looked back. Too much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I say this as a woman who supports gay marriage, ordination of women, etc.

We did too. The Episcopal Church is already dead. http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/home-page-news-and-views/why-is-the-episcopal-church-near-collapse.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a rational point of view, they are contracting, not expanding, their image of God. God revealed an aspect of His nature as being masculine. By removing (or obscuring) that piece of revelation, you know less about God. But what would you expect - the whole Espicopal edifice is based on one thing - Henry VIII's loins.

Wrong. YOu are referring to the Anglican Church which is 85 million strong and the third largest Christian religion in the world. Episcopalians exist only in the United States and are no longer even in communion (thanks to Bishop Schori) with the Anglican Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion

Not accurate.

Also, don’t you have something better to do than to constantly shit talk TEC on here? Did you get kicked off the vestery or something?

What's not accurate? Why such hostility? I don't talk shit. I'm an Anglican LEM. Yes, ECUSA was punished and pushed out of the world-wide Anglican communion in 2016. http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/january/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion-gay-marriage.html

[Anonymous]

I have no desire to get into the theology. I am an interfaith minister. My thoughts.... God is the Loving Source of all that Is. God is everything. Male and Female. To insist on a pronoun reduces God to human, and God is not human. Too often we create God in our image. And that's not how it works.

When I am called to pray with an evangelical Christian (I am a Hospice Chaplain), I usually pray "Jesus" and of course, Jesus was male. If I'm praying with a Catholic, I'll use either Jesus, God, He/Him, Father God, or even Mother Mary. Often I pray with people who are more progressive Christians. I usually pray, "Mother Father God" or "Loving Spirit". Occasionally I pray with Pagan or Earth based faiths. It's always "Gaia" or "Mother". If the person is Muslim, I'm going to stick with male pronouns. If they are Buddhist or agnostic/atheist, I'm going to use life review or gratitude meditation.

I don't think God cares about our simple human language. God is simply I Am. Why does the Bible refer to God using male pronouns? Think about who held the power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people need a pronoun to feel loved by and included in Christ, they have much bigger issues with their faith. (By this I mean that I think this change is absolutely ridiculous, not that the change is warranted.)

Left ECUSA years ago and have never looked back. Too much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I say this as a woman who supports gay marriage, ordination of women, etc.

You get used to it. Faster than you might think. Changes to the liturgy that you know and feel connected to can feel like a part of yourself being torn up and thrown away.

But before you know it, the new liturgy becomes associated with everything you feel connected to.

I hated it when they modernized the language in our prayer books (all the "Thee"s and "Thy"s gone) because it felt like the poetry had been drained away. And I didn't like the move to gender-neutral language. But because I'm Jewish, I didn't have a million other options for congregations, and now I don't even notice it.

You do realize, of course, that the Hebrew second person singular does NOT have the overtones of formality that "thee" and "thou" have come to have (they did not have that originally either, which is why the King James translators used them). Biblical Hebrew, though more "poetical" than Mishnaic Hebrew, is still pretty direct and blunt - the overtones are even more so if you first learned Hebrew by learning modern Israeli Hebrew, and have an ear for Israeli speech. I once knew an Israeli who translated Shma Israel as "Listen Israel!" and he was not far off.

I am NOT fluent in any variety of Hebrew, but try to read scriptures/taanach and prayers in Hebrew as much as I can, as I find the actual flow of the actual Hebrew words to be both beautiful (well usually, not all of the liturgy) and to provide a more direct experience of Jewish spirituality, unmediated by the traditions of English language translation, or the (mostly gentile) cultural baggage of the English language. The Hebrew bible, especially works like Psalms (Tehillim) and prophets (Neviim) are among the first great products of our civilization.

My point was about the English prayers that I grew up with and my feelings about them. The Hebrew never changed. And I read biblical Hebrew, so thank you for the linguistics lesson.

[Anonymous]

Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

I'm the Interfaith Minister above and I don't understand it either. Of all the churches I've been to, the Episcopal churches always seem to be the most inclusive, most committed to actually doing what Christ said to do, and frankly, the kindest. I don't get to attend my home church as often as I would like because of work, but we attend an Episcopal church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

I'm the Interfaith Minister above and I don't understand it either. Of all the churches I've been to, the Episcopal churches always seem to be the most inclusive, most committed to actually doing what Christ said to do, and frankly, the kindest. I don't get to attend my home church as often as I would like because of work, but we attend an Episcopal church.

There is at least one poster here who is on a warpath over TEC. It’s really weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every thread about the Episcopal church turns ugly. Why? I understand that people disagree but why the bashing? Especially of Bishop Schori?

Just google her. She's the one that destroyed the Episcopal Church. She did not believe in most Christian tenets. http://www.virtueonline.org/gc2012-false-theology-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori. She was the one that decided to sue the small churches that wanted to depart and wound up bankrupting ECUSA suing all the departing churches. That took almost a decade and is still going on even though she was fired by ECUSA some time ago. The NY headquarters has to be sold to pay off the debt. The national cathedral can't be fixed because of lack of funds. Her "reign" was a disaster which ultimately wound up with the Anglican Primates voting to suspend ECUSA from the Anglican communion. look at her wiki page too.

[Anonymous]

The actual resolution: “If revision of the Book of Common Prayer is authorized, to utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God."

They aren't rewriting the Lord's Prayer. They resolved that if the Episcopal Church authorizes a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, it ought to try to use gender-inclusive language. To which I say, why not? It's not that hard to use inclusive language most of the time. My parish already uses it, and it's mostly a matter of saying "God" instead of "he."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The actual resolution: “If revision of the Book of Common Prayer is authorized, to utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God."

They aren't rewriting the Lord's Prayer. They resolved that if the Episcopal Church authorizes a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, it ought to try to use gender-inclusive language. To which I say, why not? It's not that hard to use inclusive language most of the time. My parish already uses it, and it's mostly a matter of saying "God" instead of "he."

This. It's not hard at all. I do it all the time in chaplaincy work. There are so many easy ways to do it without it seeming awkward: God, Living- Loving God (even the Southern Baptists are ok with that one), Divine Spirit, Spirit, Loving Spirit, Source, Creator, ..... So many great ways to say the same thing.