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."

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.