|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inclusive and Expansive language
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
A while ago I was 'pointed' to the St Helena Breviary - and the self description for that Breviary says the sisters have been working for a long period of time
quote:
in revising the language of our breviary for inclusive and expansive language.
Now I know some traditionalists get hot under the collar about inclusive language, and I also know many Christians appreciate it.
It seems to me what is termed 'expansive language' can be very helpful.
I do find the 'Almighty, All powerful Father' talk of the church OK but I appreciate a more expansive approach introducing other terms, adjectives etc (several of them Biblical) to describe God. Liturgically I find such languages raises my personal vision and gives fresh insight.
Is this an area in which you church has a concern - in for example hymnody or liturgy?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Nowadays, I think most people are fairly ok when the issue is inclusive language which refers to humans or human beings. In both of my previous parishes, we dropped the word "men" in the Creed so it reads either "For us and our salvation" or "For us all and our salvation."
What is more controversial is inclusive language about God. I think for most small o-orthodox Christians, the baptismal formula is untouchable: No "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sustainer."
Beyond that, I noticed among many Anglican clergy when praying extemporaneously, they tend to avoid masculine language. It is rare for me for a priest nowadays to pray "Heavenly Father" outside of the liturgy. Now, it's "Loving God" or "Holy One." I think there is an understanding among some Anglicans that the liturgy is one thing, extemporaneous prayer is another.
Still, there was one priest I know who noticeably dropped the term "virgin" when referring to Mary, in the Eucharistic Prayer. I don't know if that relayed her disbelief in the virgin birth.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There is preference and then there is history. Some texts and hymns scan quite badly with revision, in which case, a new setting is in order I think. I personally dislike the term "lord" in any church context probably because of associations to types of belief that have upset me in early years.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... Beyond that, I noticed among many Anglican clergy when praying extemporaneously, they tend to avoid masculine language. It is rare for me for a priest nowadays to pray "Heavenly Father" outside of the liturgy. Now, it's "Loving God" or "Holy One." I think there is an understanding among some Anglicans that the liturgy is one thing, extemporaneous prayer is another.
Still, there was one priest I know who noticeably dropped the term "virgin" when referring to Mary, in the Eucharistic Prayer. I don't know if that relayed her disbelief in the virgin birth.
I have never noticed, or as far as I am aware, encountered either of those.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
My own denomination seems to be moving* toward more inclusive and expansive language. In our new (c2006) book of worship, one finds the following:
- Invocation alternative: We still have 'In the name' but we also have this, in various iterations.
- Collect terminations that include 'through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord' which, if you ask me, seems to be an intermediary means to form our minds over the next couple decades to hear 'through Jesus Christ our Savior'
- The 'new' ELLC texts, including that of the Nicene Creed (see here), in which we say 'and became truly human.'
- Intercession interlude: We seem to have lost '...let us pray to the Lord. Lord, have mercy' as an interlude between petitions, and instead have gained '...let us pray. Have mercy, O God.' From the perspective of someone who puts together the prayers, this new option tends to fall flat, and few people join in. The former one was more ingrained.
- Eucharistic prayers that largely void gender at all. Unfortunately the copyright choke-hold which we must endure makes them hard to find online, although I might not be so willing to hold them up as examples, anyway. Suffice it to say several end up being random sentence lists.
Let me clarify that I am not holding these changes out as exemplary, but merely reporting them as news here. Most of the places where we have inclusive and/or expansive language seem to be unnecessarily complicated, or at the very least the composers seem to be attempting yet not attaining poetry.
I mention all this as a person who is a fan of the St. Helena Breviary. If it ever came to the point where TEC demanded an inclusive prayer book, I would suggest the powers that be appoint the sisters to craft it, and leave them alone for a decade or so to compose it and pray out the kinks.
*This is all my own observation, and not an official position that has been stated, at least that I am aware of.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Sorry for the double-post
Mention must also be made of The New Century Hymnal (PDF-intro only). Published in the 1990s by the United Church of Christ, it is based entirely on expansion and inclusiveness.
I do not have my copy handy, but one ends up like:
- 'Sovereign, have mercy' instead of 'Lord, have mercy'
- Yours is the glory, resurrected One instead of Thine be the glory, ris'n, conqu'ring Son
- Sing praise to God, who has shaped and sustains all creation instead of Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation
- We worship you, God, your power and your love instead of O Worship the King, all glorious above
- O mighty God instead of How Great Thou Art (a retranslation from Swedish, as the English copyright prevents rewording)
- Beautiful Jesus instead of Beautiful Savior
Obviously the list can go on and on.
Olaf's opinion: it's not a horrible hymnal. They set out to do something different, and they did it fairly well. That said, I have heard that even some of the most ardent Congregational supporters of such language would rather just sing How Great Thou Art the way that they always have. I have also heard that not a few congregations of the UCC that own this hymnal also keep a second non-inclusive hymnal in their pew racks, too.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
So, Lord, King, and, probably, Master are out as being not nearly expansive enough for current fashion.
Can anyone recite for me, with conviction, why this might be?
[ 08. June 2013, 22:09: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
For me the clue is in the term quote:
expansive
It's not, for me, about out goes Lord, Master etc. but more about drawing more on the rich variety of words, images, metaphorical language of the Scriptures, tradition etc.
So it's about enriching the liturgy.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, Lord, King, and, probably, Master are out as being not nearly expansive enough for current fashion.
Can anyone recite for me, with conviction, why this might be?
Because they're exclusively
--about absolute power over someone, and reek of historical abuses (e.g., slavery);
and
--masculine.
It's not about fashion. It's about feeling included by God and church. That makes a huge difference. It matters.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Golden Key, thank you being willing to stand as my foil.
I, too, would have been happy to think as you do in years past, but I have changed my mind.
In brief, my reasons are three:
1) I never thought of Lord, Master, and King as exclusively masculine. Blame it on my family history, where my mother's father insisted that their daughter always be in a position never to have to depend on a man to support her. And where my mother's mother who knew German, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin ("plenty of learning for any woman," her father thought) was kicked out of the house for wanting to go to nursing school. She should have been an MD/PhD instead of a nurse.
2) Lord, Master, and King have very rarely ever been about absolute power. The parable of the talents comes to mind (Matt. 25:14-30), where the slave with five talents was entrusted with a staggeringly large amount of wealth to trade with. And, there are plenty of other biblical examples.
3) Without Lord, Master, and King I wouldn't know what to do with the Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian quote:
O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despondency, lust of power, and idle talk.
But rather give to me your servant the spirit of sober judgment, humility, patience, and love.
Yes, my Lord and King, grant me to see my own faults, and not to condemn my brother or sister. For blessed are you, unto ages of ages. Amen. O Lord, cleanse me, a sinner.
That prayer is essential to my piety and it is shot through with submission to the unalterable theanthropic end of my created being.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Coming out of a different culture, "Lord" and its counterparts say to me "this is the person who has my obedience, sure, but even more important, who has responsibility for protecting me and seeing that my needs are provided for. That is what the feudal ideal was about. The lord held his vassals on the understanding that he would both protect and provide for them--it was not by any means a one-way street. Sure, it got abused, maybe most of the time even. But we are not dealing with an abuser here with God, anymore than the bad behavior of human fathers and husbands (or some shepherds, etc!) ought to negate those images for everybody.
Maybe this is why "Lord" is my favorite name for God.
[ 09. June 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What is more controversial is inclusive language about God. I think for most small o-orthodox Christians, the baptismal formula is untouchable: No "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sustainer."
The problem with that formula (which is very definitely one of my liturgical pet peeves though Deo gratias I've never heard it at a baptism) is not that it is inclusive language but that it isn't a descriptor of the persons of the Holy Trinity. All three persons of the Trinity create, redeem and sustain and do a whole load of other things besides. I'm fine with choosing to refer to the persons of the Trinity with non-masculine terms but they need to be theologically appropriate.
My own practice is that I don't mess about with language for the Trinity (so I'm solidly Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but in all other contexts I use gender neutral terms (Gracious God, Loving God, Eternal God etc.).
[ 09. June 2013, 06:32: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What is more controversial is inclusive language about God. I think for most small o-orthodox Christians, the baptismal formula is untouchable: No "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sustainer."
Would that not be modalism?
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What is more controversial is inclusive language about God. I think for most small o-orthodox Christians, the baptismal formula is untouchable: No "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sustainer."
Would that not be modalism?
It's sort of modalism-plus. On the one hand, it does what modalism does, and says that the persons of the Trinity are merely different ways of God expressing himself (for lack of a better word...) to the world, not an ontological reality within God. He is defined not in terms of his own essential being, but only in terms of his expression towards his creation. There ends up being nothing essential about his Trinitarian nature. This is not the faith as we have received it.
The problem with the Creator-Redeemer-Sanctifier/Sustainer phrasing is that it takes the modalist heresy and makes it worse. It suggests that God only does these three things to the world. Where, for instance, would you put "Revealer"? Or, indeed, "Lover"?
Even worse than that is the idea that creation, redemption and sanctification are separate actions that can be parcelled off into separate parts of the Godhead, as if redemption didn't involve sanctification and new creation!
It's well-intentioned, of course. But it's also profoundly misleading. (This, of course, is a description that could apply to most heresies and heretics.)
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Some of the ideas expressed in this thread are very troubling. I deeply and profoundly hope they do not catch on.
The Father is the Father. Furthermore, "the Father is Lord, the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet there are not three Lords: but one Lord".
Whatever the motive, worthy or unworthy, I don't think you can tamper with that, and I don't think anyone ought to try. This is similar to the recent row about those who tried to find some other word for "Son" that might make the bridge to Christianity less difficult for Moslems to cross. The price would have been to Arianise the faith. Jesus is the Son of God. One has to accept that to be a Christian, not try to conceal it.
So one also has to ask a person who feels uncomfortable acknowledging the Father as Father, or either Jesus or any member of the Trinity as Lord, "is this a legitimate squeamishness that is in some way peculiar to you, or is there something fundamental about the Christian message that you are trying to duck away from?"
Many years ago, I read of someone who said, to the effect, 'I could never be an Anglican, because I could not kneel down and say every Sunday, 'Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep .... etc' '. What they meant is that they didn't really believe they were a sinner. Furthermore even if they were, they would find it abject and demeaning even to say so, yet alone to do so on their knees.
There are good reasons for not being an Anglican, but if that was their reason, I would say that was a very good reason why Anglican was exactly what they did need to be. Their statement pinpointed a spiritual crunch point, that, to my mind self-evidently, they needed to do something about.
If somebody were to tell me that recognising God as Father or Lord was something that disturbed them, made them feel edgy and uncomfortable, I'd be inclined to suggest that was a valuable and significant indicator of a spiritual symptom they needed to work through, rather than something that the Church Universal should change so as to accommodate them.
Lamb Chopped, you may not feel the converse, but this is not the first time I have thought you talk a lot of sense! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
But Enoch I think you worry too much!
For myself I am happy to use the term Father, hallowed as it is by tradition and the Bible. But so too are other terms for God, found in the Holy Sciptures and the church's tradition, both ancient and modern.
My feeling is some of the power language can helpfully be balanced by more gentle and consoling terms for the deity, drawn from many sources, old and new, and, dare I say it, perhaps from the enlightenment received from God in other world faiths.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
If a neutral acclamation is desired, I am not in opposition to the Episcopal Church's "Blessed be the one, holy, and living God."
I believe it comes from Supplementary Liturgical Materials.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
I'm not a fan of this innovation.
We call God "Father" and "Lord" for a reason: it reinforces the relationship between us and Him, as servants and Master. That our good fortunes are the result entirely of his good providence, that his redemptive work for us was unmerited, and that he is the source of all goodness.
That cautions us against idolatry, and also makes it such that we know that he is boss, not us, and therefore we don't try to change the doctrines of the church or treat God as our slave or puppet who tells us the things we want to hear.
The same people who don't like calling God "Lord" also don't like calling themselves "miserable sinners". And that is no coincidence.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
If a neutral acclamation is desired, I am not in opposition to the Episcopal Church's "Blessed be the one, holy, and living God."
I believe it comes from Supplementary Liturgical Materials.
Though it's not Trinitarian, and it isn't distinctively Christian. This may or may not be a concern.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Look at the inclusive language Psalms. Completely obscure Christological prophesy for the sake of pleasing feminists.
I'm so glad Miles Coverdale never underwent diversity sensitivity training.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
If a neutral acclamation is desired, I am not in opposition to the Episcopal Church's "Blessed be the one, holy, and living God."
I believe it comes from Supplementary Liturgical Materials.
Though it's not Trinitarian, and it isn't distinctively Christian. This may or may not be a concern.
So what do you suggest for an inclusive and expansive Trinitarian opening acclamation? I don't mean this to be snarky....if you have a suggestion, I'm sure a lot of people here would be interested. Some of us have some voice where it matters in the liturgical world.
(For what it's worth, I offered the example as a "better than others I've seen" sort of thing. I personally prefer "In the name..." and I'm certainly not going to argue for the Episcopal alternative over it.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I'm so glad Miles Coverdale never underwent diversity sensitivity training.
Or training in Hebrew or Greek! Now that would have REALLY ruined things.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
So what do you suggest for an inclusive and expansive Trinitarian opening acclamation?
"Holy, Holy, Holy"
(It worked for Isaiah)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The only (inclusive) Trinitarian formulas that don't fall into modalism:
1) "Blessed be God: Source, eternal Word and Holy Spirit."
and
2) "Blessed be God: Lover, Beloved, and the Spirit of Love."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The only (inclusive) Trinitarian formulas that don't fall into modalism:
1) "Blessed be God: Source, eternal Word and Holy Spirit."
and
2) "Blessed be God: Lover, Beloved, and the Spirit of Love."
IMHO neither of those are adequately Trinitarian or meet the test "neither confounding the persons". It would be difficult for a casual visitor to recognise that we believe there are three persons. Even a Moslem could probably assent to them.
Percy B, I think you may be onto something that there are a multitude of terms for God in scripture that draw on different aspects of his nature, and that we could make more use of them. Nevertheless, I would still say that a person who uses other terms in preference to rather than in addition to 'Father', 'Son', 'Holy Spirit' and 'Lord' because those make him or her feel uncomfortable, has a spiritual problem they need to address rather than is entitled to expect the Church Universal to change its ways to accommodate them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The only (inclusive) Trinitarian formulas that don't fall into modalism:
1) "Blessed be God: Source, eternal Word and Holy Spirit."
and
2) "Blessed be God: Lover, Beloved, and the Spirit of Love."
I'd sooner say "Blessed be God, the Holy and Undivided Trinity."
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Hmm. I tend to ask who the innovations seem to upset, and who's happier with them, and draw my own conclusions.
This particular one's thereby getting positive vibes for me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The reason why attempts at such inclusive or expansive language have an heretical bent, such as modalism, is because the purveyors of such language are usually less than orthodox themselves and/or have fallen into an -ism (all -isms are to be avoided). This is why we should stick to the language of the creeds, ancient liturgies and scripture.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reason why attempts at such inclusive or expansive language have an heretical bent, such as modalism, is because the purveyors of such language are usually less than orthodox themselves and/or have fallen into an -ism (all -isms are to be avoided). This is why we should stick to the language of the creeds, ancient liturgies and scripture.
The first part of your post involves making windows into people's souls and I cannot see how it helps. The final sentence I agree with entirely.
I would begin with 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' because that is the liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church and because that is how the persons of the Trinity have been revealed to us in Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. I am deeply sorry if the norm of Divine Revelation makes some people uncomfortable because of ideology or personal experience. Those idiosyncrasies do not, I feel, justify the kind of innovations talked about here.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Spot on.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I do find the 'Almighty, All powerful Father' talk of the church OK but I appreciate a more expansive approach introducing other terms, adjectives etc (several of them Biblical) to describe God. Liturgically I find such languages raises my personal vision and gives fresh insight.
I've just remembered something I read a while ago about how the phrase 'kingdom of God' is problematic and unhelpful for some people today because of the negative connotations of the word 'kingdom'. I realise its a wholly Biblical concept and I'm not campaining for the term be droppped, but I thought it was an interesting point.
'Kingdom' these days can, for some people, carry implications of imperialism and oppression, so this author was suggesting different words which he thought might still get the message across but without the baggage that 'kingdom' comes with. A few of the ideas were 'network of God', 'dance of God', 'story of God', IIRC.
I rather like this process of coming up with modern versions of the Biblical analogies and metaphors. It strikes me as a mature approach to the holy scriptures, recognising that reading them well entails a process of cross-cultural understanding which goes far beyond a simple grasping of the words' meanings. And I think it can be an effective way of communicating what the original, Biblical figures of speech were getting at. (If we choose our modern versions well, of course...)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I've just remembered something I read a while ago about how the phrase 'kingdom of God' is problematic and unhelpful for some people today because of the negative connotations of the word 'kingdom'. I realise its a wholly Biblical concept and I'm not campaining for the term be droppped, but I thought it was an interesting point.
'Kingdom' these days can, for some people, carry implications of imperialism and oppression
It probably did for some people two thousand years ago too, so what's your point?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Kingdom' these days can, for some people, carry implications of imperialism and oppression
It probably did for some people two thousand years ago too, so what's your point?
We don't use the word 'kingdom' much any more though, do we? And it's got, to my mind at least, pretty strong negative associations. Perhaps not for you, it's a personal response after all.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
All these potentially embarrassing terms only make sense in the light of the God revealed in Christ crucified. As such, in a Christian context, they are subverting the natural human concept of power.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
All these potentially embarrassing terms only make sense in the light of the God revealed in Christ crucified. As such, in a Christian context, they are subverting the natural human concept of power.
Indeed. I think we should be using language about God that disturbs more, not fewer, people. God is disturbing. He's God.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, Lord, King, and, probably, Master are out as being not nearly expansive enough for current fashion.
Can anyone recite for me, with conviction, why this might be?
Because they're exclusively
--about absolute power over someone, and reek of historical abuses (e.g., slavery);
and
--masculine.
It's not about fashion. It's about feeling included by God and church. That makes a huge difference. It matters.
But this kind of biblical language about God has become profoundly counter-cultural ... which is just one reason why it's so important to retain it.
I am an egalitarian evangelical, not a radical feminist. I am all for inclusive language of the kind that the NRSV and revised NIV use, i.e. the sensible use of it to denote where Paul (for example) is addressing both men and women in the church.
But. We dilute the strong red wine of traditional imagery about God at our peril. God transcends both masculine and feminine, sure He does: God is Spirit. But the language about His fatherhood and His Lordship is there in Scripture for a reason, and we ignore it at our peril. I am an open/charismatic evangelical, rather than reformed/conservative evangelical, so I do understand how alienating a male-only representation of God can be. I agree, it's a distorted picture of Him. But a feminine-only representation is equally distorting and alienating. It would alienate me, and I'm all about the equality of women and men in the kingdom.
Just because we 21st century Christians find something in Scripture or the liturgy uncomfortable is certainly no reason just to chuck it out. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Wrestle with it, sure. But don't jettison it. It's there for a reason.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
After my last post I was reminded of the line in one of Aidan Kavanagh's books where he says we have allowed ourselves quote:
to tame the Lion of Judah and put him into a suburban zoo to entertain children.
So if we want to replace terms like "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", how about, "Volcano, Earthquake and Storm"? That's more like God to me.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Adeodatus: So if we want to replace terms like "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", how about, "Volcano, Earthquake and Storm"? That's more like God to me.
Elijah disagrees with you.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
We dilute the strong red wine of traditional imagery about God at our peril. God transcends both masculine and feminine, sure He does: God is Spirit. But the language about His fatherhood and His Lordship is there in Scripture for a reason, and we ignore it at our peril.
For some people, though, concepts like fatherhood and lordship have strongly negative connotations. Of course, that's also true for 2,000 years ago in ancient Israel, but maybe it's true for many more people now. Without having done any research on the matter, I suspect it might be.
Also, did 'fatherhood' and 'lordship' have strongly positive connotations in Jesus' time and place that apply much less so nowadays in most places? Again, I think they might; which for me validates the search for different terms, that might IMO more accurately reflect the impact the original terms would have had on the original hearers and readers of the Bible.
(This is not to say we should ditch the Biblical terms, rather that it could be worthwhile to use other, more relevant terms alongside the Biblical originals.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We don't use the word 'kingdom' much any more though, do we?
![[Confused]](confused.gif) In this country its hard to listen to the daily news without hearing it used these days. Usually with the woird "united" stuck in front of it, and often abbrevieated to "UK".
(What with the Scottish Referendum, new Troubles in (Northern) Ireland, the anniversary of the Queen's accession, the usual suspects going on about how they think Prince Charles can never be king, and the brain-dead bigots of UKIP farting their moronic bile about the EU all over the place...)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
All these potentially embarrassing terms only make sense in the light of the God revealed in Christ crucified. As such, in a Christian context, they are subverting the natural human concept of power.
Yes, indeedy.
It's always helpful for westerners to remind themselves what the Orthodox are up to.
The only icon labeled King of Glory shows Christ crucified.
[To get a sense of how benighted the West (wherever that maybe be) is google up King of Glory and prepared to be appalled. Then google up King of Glory icon to see the refreshing difference.]
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm certain that way lies heresy.
I'm sorry, precisely which way is that?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Adeodatus: So if we want to replace terms like "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", how about, "Volcano, Earthquake and Storm"? That's more like God to me.
Elijah disagrees with you.
Elijah's "quiet, but awfully difficult to translate" moment was an isolated instance. God also has an occasional tendency to throw his toys around.
But if you don't like the geological activity, how about formulating something around the idea of the "consuming fire"? (Hebrews 12.29)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Silent Acolyte,
The way whereby one uses language not found in the creeds or the ancient liturgies or the sacred scriptures even if, as South Coast Kevin maintains, one does not reject the traditional language. The new language is doomed to lead to heresy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
But. We dilute the strong red wine of traditional imagery about God at our peril. God transcends both masculine and feminine, sure He does: God is Spirit. But the language about His fatherhood and His Lordship is there in Scripture for a reason, and we ignore it at our peril. I am an open/charismatic evangelical, rather than reformed/conservative evangelical, so I do understand how alienating a male-only representation of God can be. I agree, it's a distorted picture of Him. But a feminine-only representation is equally distorting and alienating. It would alienate me, and I'm all about the equality of women and men in the kingdom.
Just because we 21st century Christians find something in Scripture or the liturgy uncomfortable is certainly no reason just to chuck it out. Wrestle with it, sure. But don't jettison it. It's there for a reason. [/QB]
While I can see that I also feel that traditional evangelical (and some Catholic) theology , hymnody and liturgy has favoured certain Biblical images of God above others, and certain traditional images of God in the history of the church above others.
We have such a rich and wide variety of words, metaphors and images of God in Scripture and in the tradition that to stick just on Fatherhood and Lordship, as seems to be being suggested, is a pity. It is in the more expansive approach that I like several modern Christian poets and liturgists. Of course, looking back we also find people like Anselm and Julian of Norwich using more expansive labguage and imagery than some today seem to be comfortable with or want.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We don't use the word 'kingdom' much any more though, do we?
In this country its hard to listen to the daily news without hearing it used these days. Usually with the woird "united" stuck in front of it, and often abbrevieated to "UK".
Yeah, good point, ken. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) In my defence, I think maybe we lose the sense of meaning for words that get used in this kind of way, for names of things. I hope that explains why I simply forgot about the 'Kingdom' in 'United Kingdom' - or it's early-onset senility, one of the two...
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The way whereby one uses language not found in the creeds or the ancient liturgies or the sacred scriptures even if, as South Coast Kevin maintains, one does not reject the traditional language. The new language is doomed to lead to heresy.
I don't get it, sorry. As long as we don't throw out the Biblical imagery and language, isn't what I'm talking about just another aspect of translation? We translate the literal words from the ancient language into our own, and likewise we need to 'translate' some (many, I reckon) of the concepts, metaphors, and cultural reference points from the Bible into new ones that carry a similar meaning in our own culture.
In fact, rather than this process leading to heresy, I wonder if a failure to do it can lead us down some unhelpful theological pathways. Maybe atonement theories are a good example - we see words like 'judgement', impose our own ideas of courtroom legal proceedings and come up with Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Maybe. I'm kinda thinking aloud here...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
While I can see that I also feel that traditional evangelical (and some Catholic) theology , hymnody and liturgy has favoured certain Biblical images of God above others, and certain traditional images of God in the history of the church above others.
We have such a rich and wide variety of words, metaphors and images of God in Scripture and in the tradition that to stick just on Fatherhood and Lordship, as seems to be being suggested, is a pity. It is in the more expansive approach that I like several modern Christian poets and liturgists. Of course, looking back we also find people like Anselm and Julian of Norwich using more expansive labguage and imagery than some today seem to be comfortable with or want.
I can see your point but the main purpose of liturgy is primarily the worship of God and God is primarily known to Christians as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The other images from Sacred Scripture are great but, I would argue, must always take second place.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Silent Acolyte,
The way whereby one uses language not found in the creeds or the ancient liturgies or the sacred scriptures even if, as South Coast Kevin maintains, one does not reject the traditional language. The new language is doomed to lead to heresy.
Jones would come back, comrades!
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Silent Acolyte,
The way whereby one uses language not found in the creeds or the ancient liturgies or the sacred scriptures even if, as South Coast Kevin maintains, one does not reject the traditional language. The new language is doomed to lead to heresy.
Thanks for the expanded explanation. quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh?
One can drop all kinds of peculiar jetsam into google. Trying dropping Jones would come back, comrades! into the search box. What comes back is pretty helpful, if not very flattering.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
