Thread: Inclusive and Expansive language Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025841
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
My own denomination seems to be moving* toward more inclusive and expansive language. In our new (c2006) book of worship, one finds the following:


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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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:


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.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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...)
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
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.
[Tear]
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] Wrestle with it, sure. But don't jettison it. It's there for a reason.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.)
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I'm certain that way lies heresy.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We don't use the word 'kingdom' much any more though, do we?
[Confused] 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...)
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
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. [Ultra confused] 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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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?
[Confused] 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] 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...
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Eh?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I'm reminded of Gregory Dix's naughty characterisation of Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher's understanding of Christianity:

God is nice and in Him there is no nastiness at all.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
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.
Ok, thanks. So, it's from Animal Farm. Not quite sure I understand its use here though.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I am not willing to maintain language usage that alienates people for the sake of tradition. All of our words are projections, and for some, some the words lead them in distinctly non-divine directions. I get that language like Sovereign Lord, King, Father express something rather special that intensifies the praying and liturgical experience for many. I know some whose relationships with authority, their fathers, is distinctly troubling and need to avoid this language. It is an open question as to whether the majority should change because of sensitivity to the minority's needs.

I have always found it odd that the Holy Spirit is "he" in our Anglican prayer books, but I understand that we lack an appropriate pronoun. So I ask provocatively: what is the objection to using either "she" or "it" for the Holy Spirit anyway?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
"It" is not used for a person. The Holy Spirit is a person.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
"It" is not used for a person. The Holy Spirit is a person.
Legitimately "she" as much as "he" in your view? I was being facetious with "it".
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
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.)
I'm not sure I have a better alternative. I am concerned to use inclusive language whenever possible (I have a sermon-writing stage that attempts to remove masculine pronouns when referring to God, for instance). But when it comes to a conflict between gender-neutrality and orthodoxy, orthodoxy wins every time for me.

In the Church of England, it isn't compulsory to use "In the name...". I'd leave it out if the use of the masculine terms was problematic in a particular context.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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.
I am inclined to agree. But I think second place images, to use your term have been in danger of totally forgotten.

'God of our ancestors, God of our people...' Was a form of addressing God I came across in a Post Communion prayer today. I, for one, would welcome more use of such expansive language.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Legitimately "she" as much as "he" in your view?
Was this necessary? There was nothing in my thirteen-word post that commented on using the personal singular feminine, or masculine, pronoun for the third person of the trinity. It was restricted to asserting the personhood. Since you seem interested, I believe the Georgian language makes the third person of the trinity grammatically feminine. The choice for a feminine pronoun in English carries a bit more freight, I'm afraid.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Legitimately "she" as much as "he" in your view?
Was this necessary? There was nothing in my thirteen-word post that commented on using the personal singular feminine, or masculine, pronoun for the third person of the trinity. It was restricted to asserting the personhood. Since you seem interested, I believe the Georgian language makes the third person of the trinity grammatically feminine. The choice for a feminine pronoun in English carries a bit more freight, I'm afraid.
I'm sorry, I meant no offence.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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?
Have no idea about Master, but Kings today, at least as seen in North America, are either tyrants or utterly powerless. Not good images either one. And lord may work in the UK, but we don't have them here -- so the word conveys no meaning unless you accompany each usage with a dictionary.

John
John
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm sorry, I meant no offence.
The apology should be mine; there was no reason for me to be so tetchy.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My own denomination seems to be moving* toward more inclusive and expansive language. [*This is all my own observation, and not an official position that has been stated, at least that I am aware of.]
Principles for Worship probably said something about this, but I can't find my copy.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
Sure, but that surely is more reason than ever to reclaim the biblical language and symbolism of God's fatherhood, not chuck it out. I know something about abandonment by a biological father, which is why the concept of God's fatherhood is so healing and powerful (and God's motherhood, too).

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
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.
Totally agree.

Pondering more on what others have said in this thread, the kingship and lordship of Christ have nothing to do with earthly models of leadership, although the Church in her long history seems sometimes to have muddled this up, with some appalling results. But Christ is, of course, the Servant-King.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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...
Sure, but that surely is more reason than ever to reclaim the biblical language and symbolism of God's fatherhood, not chuck it out.
I'm not saying we should chuck out the biblical language and symbolism of anything. Rather, for some of the language it may be helpful to bring in new language that helps us reclaim and illuminate the original language.

I do realise the risk of bringing in implications and shades of meaning that aren't there in the biblical writings, but we already have a parallel risk when readers today bring our own (mis)conceptions to the biblical concepts, analogies etc. It's not like doing nothing is risk-free.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm sorry, I meant no offence.
The apology should be mine; there was no reason for me to be so tetchy.
Nice all round

*happy sigh*

Zappa-host, happily watching the love
 
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm certain that way lies heresy.
Of course it does. These are the same people trying to subvert the moral teachings of the Church, extend the priesthood beyond what God allows, deny the maleness of Christ, and completely supplant our scriptural-based relationship with the Lord of the universe.

it is no wonder they hate the Prayer Book so much.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Of course it does. These are the same people trying to subvert the moral teachings of the Church, extend the priesthood beyond what God allows, deny the maleness of Christ, and completely supplant our scriptural-based relationship with the Lord of the universe.

it is no wonder they hate the Prayer Book so much.
Is there any room at all for nuance in your thinking? Because not every single person who supports women priests denies the maleness of Christ. Not every person who believes in the authority of the Bible shares your particular view of the priesthood. And there are many folk who are doctrinally orthodox but prefer contemporary language in liturgy and Bible translation to the 17th century language of the Prayer Book.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm certain that way lies heresy.
Of course it does. These are the same people trying to subvert the moral teachings of the Church, extend the priesthood beyond what God allows, deny the maleness of Christ, and completely supplant our scriptural-based relationship with the Lord of the universe.

it is no wonder they hate the Prayer Book so much.
Yep. The devil makes us do it; we get his infernal instructions in our priestess-led black masses.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Let's steer clear of the Dead Horses. This is not the place for debating female priests.

seasick, Eccles host

[ 11. June 2013, 15:12: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
These are the same people trying to subvert the moral teachings of the Church, extend the priesthood beyond what God allows, deny the maleness of Christ, and completely supplant our scriptural-based relationship with the Lord of the universe.
Liar.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
ken:

That is a personal attack, contrary to Commandment 3. You have been part of the ship more than long enough to know the rules. If you want to challenge Indifferently's post in those terms then you need to do so in Hell.

seasick, Eccles host
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I considered this thread in terms of what I pray. If I use a liturgical form that contains words like king, father and lord, then I form my conception of god within those wordings. (I use pieces of the normal eucharist liturgy repetitively all the time, sometimes a piece of it for a year or two, every day, multiple times until it seems burned into my neurons.)

So it seems that the language we use repetitively in liturgy affects me directly. If the language of that prayer was different, I'd have a different conception of it, say if I dropped the "father", used "mother" instead, dropped "king" and used "friend".

Thus, the implications for worship and prayer seem pretty great. What I meditated instead on God the Mother, or Heavenly Queen. Or God as a Bear? What in some ways seems a simple question about gender turns out to be rather profound.

The question leads me to ask "how does god prefer to be addressed?" (okay that was probably stupid, but there you are)
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
Perhaps expansive language also has a sense of the apophatic tradition...namely our little words simply can't fully work in describing or addressing the deity. So we rightly try a variety and challenge and evolve the tradition, but knowing we will never achieve the one final form of words.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
I think the implications of King/Lord/Master/Father imagery work the other way around. It's not "Kings abuse their power, God is King, therefore maybe God abuses his power." Rather it should be "God is King; God is just; our king is unjust; therefore our king is a bad king."

Not to mention that we can't have two kings, lords, masters simultaneously. If anything, God's kingship should preclude human kingship. This is the theory, if not always the practice, for most of Islam; few Muslim rulers have called themselves "malik" (king) because the only king is God.

The Christian-anarchist slogan "no king but God" comes to mind.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What was the word which has been translated as Lord in the original languages? Only "Lord" at the time, in the early version of English, meant something like "the provider of loaves", which would be a rather good meaning for the provider of the Eucharist.
It's probably beyond reclamation, though.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What was the word which has been translated as Lord in the original languages? Only "Lord" at the time, in the early version of English, meant something like "the provider of loaves", which would be a rather good meaning for the provider of the Eucharist.
It's probably beyond reclamation, though.
Kyrios . My limited understanding of the Greek is that the term both referred to God, and also to a human master. It could also mean "Sir" which explains why the Synoptics had people call Jesus, "Lord" in his earthly ministry. They could simply be saying "Sir" as a polite term of respect.

[ 12. June 2013, 16:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What was the word which has been translated as Lord in the original languages? Only "Lord" at the time, in the early version of English, meant something like "the provider of loaves", which would be a rather good meaning for the provider of the Eucharist.
It's probably beyond reclamation, though.
Kyrios . My limited understanding of the Greek is that the term both referred to God, and also to a human master. It could also mean "Sir" which explains why the Synoptics had people call Jesus, "Lord" in his earthly ministry. They could simply be saying "Sir" as a polite term of respect.
The word Kyrios has an interesting set of meanings. One of the most interesting ones is as a translation for the Hebrew word Adonai. This word also means "Lord", but crucially it is normally used in place of the Name of God, YHWH. Rather than using the Name of God in worship, Jews used (and use!) the word Adonai instead.

So when the Name appears in the Hebrew Bible, it was translated into the Septuagint as Kyrios. So Kyrios, as well as having its "normal" meanings of "Lord", "sir", etc, also has the precise meaning of "the God whom Israel worships".

This is significant especially when we see "Jesus is Lord" as a credal statement. It precisely means "Jesus is the God of Israel."
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Indeed 'Lord' in English is a contracted form of 'loafguard' as 'Lady' is short for 'loaf dough maker'
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Surely the case of Kyrios, which as I understand it means simple "mister" in modern Greek, is not unlike what has happened in French.

"Sieur" used to mean "Lord" -- a generic term equivalent I think to the Scots "Baron", which included those with actual titles in the English sense but was rather broader in concept. So Monsieur meant My Lord, and Madame meant My Lady, and neither would have been used by members of the middle or lower classes. Today Monsieur means "mister" and nothing else.

And, to repeat a point I made above, if modern non-religious speakers of Greek wander into a church and hear Jesus referred to as Kyrios, what are they to understand is being said?

John
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Surely the case of Kyrios, which as I understand it means simple "mister" in modern Greek, is not unlike what has happened in French.

"Sieur" used to mean "Lord" -- a generic term equivalent I think to the Scots "Baron", which included those with actual titles in the English sense but was rather broader in concept. So Monsieur meant My Lord, and Madame meant My Lady, and neither would have been used by members of the middle or lower classes. Today Monsieur means "mister" and nothing else.

And, to repeat a point I made above, if modern non-religious speakers of Greek wander into a church and hear Jesus referred to as Kyrios, what are they to understand is being said?

John
Koine Greek and modern Greek are not the same languages.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Indeed 'Lord' in English is a contracted form of 'loafguard' as 'Lady' is short for 'loaf dough maker'
Hlafdor and hlafdaeg, in Old English!

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And, to repeat a point I made above, if modern non-religious speakers of Greek wander into a church and hear Jesus referred to as Kyrios, what are they to understand is being said?

John
Koine Greek and modern Greek are not the same languages.
The point was that modern Greek speakers will hear the words differently. In the same way that we hear "Lord" and "King" differently than they did in 1611.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Indeed 'Lord' in English is a contracted form of 'loafguard' as 'Lady' is short for 'loaf dough maker'
Should I be blushing with shame. Or, are there others of you who did not know this?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
<smug> [Razz]
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Can you put this together for me. The language of the bible called God the familiar "thou" in the KJV, yet also calls uses king. Jesus is both the familiar friendly thou and also the duke of earl lord? Thou and You at once or at different times.

Is this what we're missing today? 'What a friend we have in Jesus', as well as 'Praise my soul the king of heaven, to his feet thy tribute bring.

Makes me consider a circus thread of rewording hymns to reflect the opposite thing: What a boss-man king we have in Jesus. Praise my soul my buddy in heaven, to his arms thy group hug bring.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The reason, I think, is because we have a unique situation. The person who is closer to us than anyone (being our creator and preserver), to whom we owe our lives (as redeemer), who loves us more than his OWN life, and laid it down for us... also happens to be the king of the universe, Lord and Maker of all things, Ground of our very existence, beside whom we are, well... really, really tiny. If that makes any sense.

I think this account for the rather schizo attitude you find both in the Bible and in orthodox Christian worship. And, for that matter, on the Ship, where the same person can call God out on the TICTH thread and weep at his feet on the prayer thread. Oh, and speculate on the existence of holy shit and its possible status as a relic in Kerygmania, while considering Jesus' digestive processes after the resurrection.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
ISTM, no prophet, that Christianity is full of apparent paradoxes: what you have described is one of them. What orthodox formulas of faith try to do is to hold those paradoxes. The trouble lies when we move to a point where we either try to collapse the paradox - hold that the two limbs are really the same thing - or excessively favour the one limb over the other. Each limb of any such paradox will be more or less prominent in any particular setting but ultimately it is necessary for us to hold 'What a friend we have in Jesus' and 'Praise my soul the King of Heaven' at one and the same time.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The reason, I think, is because we have a unique situation. The person who is closer to us than anyone (being our creator and preserver), to whom we owe our lives (as redeemer), who loves us more than his OWN life, and laid it down for us... also happens to be the king of the universe, Lord and Maker of all things, Ground of our very existence, beside whom we are, well... really, really tiny. If that makes any sense.
Amen to this, Lamb Chopped, and to what Trisagion posted too! And nice idea on the reworking of songs, no prophet. As I've been arguing upthread, I think there can be real benefit from adapting the language we use in our services, Bible reading etc. It can help us see God in a fresh way, helping us get over the familiarity of the traditional words.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I think I am going to talk this up a little at church. Might be interesting to eventually hear a sermon about it. Another contrast not explicit enough in my part of the world (is it elsewhere?) is the god who accepts all and the big love angle, with the demandingness re certain types of conduct. This has profound implications I think for some the "God is on our side" re some of our ongoing deadhorsey debates of social behaviour.

Which leads me to understand that one of the essences of Christianity is the holding of humanly-unresolvable paradoxes in one's mind, soul and faith. Not equating things like death-life, friend-master, god-spirit-son, but holding them in unresolvable tension. The olden lingo I suppose is "mystery", but perhaps it is more like "divine ambiguity". Mystery, like love having taken on additional meanings modernly and being something to solve versus something to mediate.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
I hate to rain on the parade, here, but the answer to the question of why we call God the informal "thee" is that there is no T-V distinction in Ancient or Koine Greek (i.e., no singular = informal, plural = formal in the second person) and that the King James Version pretty straightforwardly translates singular Greek συ into thou/etc., and plural υμεις into you/etc.

So the "Sir, thou hast..." in John 4:11 is not a Samaritan woman disrespecting a man she calls "Sir." It's just ordinary Greek, translated into English but ignoring the T-V conventions of English.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Such a lovely little theory ruined by a nasty little fact!

"Aramaic", he says hopefully from under his umbrella?
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Such a lovely little theory ruined by a nasty little fact!

"Aramaic", he says hopefully from under his umbrella?
I felt bad even as I wrote it, I assure you.

This is part of what's difficult about using older language in our liturgy, of course. In many cases today's meaning is opposite the older form, or has gained value (ameliorated) or lost value (pejorated). My favorite example would be hussy: originally this was just a contraction of hus-wif (Old English for housewife, as you might guess), and yet...

So we should be careful with questions like "no health in us." It's quite possible that the straightforward meaning of this in 1662 is not the same as the straightforward meaning in 2013, because otherwise it sounds a bit melodramatic and clearly, from a medical point of view, well, stupid.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Which is exactly why I think it's unhelpful and even dangerous to leave liturgical and hymnal language ossified in the early 17th century, or indeed in any century other than the current one.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Which is exactly why I think it's unhelpful and even dangerous to leave liturgical and hymnal language ossified in the early 17th century, or indeed in any century other than the current one.
The only thing any more dangerous is being set upon by a pack of old ladies intent on beating you with their canes for changing things! And so we muddle on.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
So we should be careful with questions like "no health in us." It's quite possible that the straightforward meaning of this in 1662 is not the same as the straightforward meaning in 2013, because otherwise it sounds a bit melodramatic and clearly, from a medical point of view, well, stupid.
As providence would have it, when I googled there is no health in us, the first hit produced this text:
quote:
ALMIGHTIE and most merciful father, we have erred and straied from thy waies, lyke lost shepee we have folowed to much the devises and desires of our owne hartes. We have offended against thy holy lawes: We have left undone those thinges whiche we ought to have done, and we have done those thinges which we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us, but thou, O Lorde, have mercy upon us miserable offendours. Spare thou them O God, whiche confesse their faultes. Restore thou them that be penitent, accordyng to thy promises declared unto mankynde, in Christe Jesu our Lorde. And graunt, O most merciful father, for his sake, that we may hereafter lyve a godly, ryghtuous, and sobre life, to the glory of thy holy name. Amen.
After this litany:it is manifest that the spiritual health not in us is the true referent and that an absent physical health is an allied image or metaphor that immediately leaps to mind. From a medical point of view there is nothing stupid about it.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
it is manifest that the spiritual health not in us is the true referent and that an absent physical health is an allied image or metaphor that immediately leaps to mind. From a medical point of view there is nothing stupid about it.
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place. Maybe it was an intentional theological decision to de-emphasize the doctrine of total depravity. Not to mention that it's in the general confession at Morning Prayer. Some people do occasionally do things indicating more-than-zero spiritual health, don't they?

Or perhaps it's the "in us" that's the problem; there's no health in us, in the sense "we have no health on our own." But then that seems like it's pretty outdated as an English phrase. If I said "I can't lift this box in myself" it wouldn't be immediately clear what I actually meant.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
My I just ask on an aside if there is an online or app. Which has an inclusive and expansive breviary / prayer book?

It would help when travelling.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
it is manifest that the spiritual health not in us is the true referent and that an absent physical health is an allied image or metaphor that immediately leaps to mind. From a medical point of view there is nothing stupid about it.
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place. Maybe it was an intentional theological decision to de-emphasize the doctrine of total depravity. Not to mention that it's in the general confession at Morning Prayer. Some people do occasionally do things indicating more-than-zero spiritual health, don't they?

Or perhaps it's the "in us" that's the problem; there's no health in us, in the sense "we have no health on our own." But then that seems like it's pretty outdated as an English phrase. If I said "I can't lift this box in myself" it wouldn't be immediately clear what I actually meant.
The object of my post was to point out that the prayer is clearly after our spiritual health so the medical absurdity of there being no health in us was beside the point.

With regard to your concern that we all know that you have some spiritual health, all I can do is quote the Prayer Book back to you:
quote:
Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
We have no health; we have no power. These statements say much the same thing and it is hard to imagine arguing against them.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
The only thing any more dangerous is being set upon by a pack of old ladies intent on beating you with their canes for changing things! And so we muddle on.
In my experience it's the old (or more likely late-middle-aged) men who have aggressive reactions to liturgical change.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
The only thing any more dangerous is being set upon by a pack of old ladies intent on beating you with their canes for changing things! And so we muddle on.
In my experience it's the old (or more likely late-middle-aged) men who have aggressive reactions to liturgical change.
Not my experience, that is if those traditional RC masses are anything to go by when I was still an RC. Lots of young families. Maybe be something to do with the lack of transcendency in reformed iturgy (in otherwords, VII liturgy).

[ 16. June 2013, 01:05: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
The only thing any more dangerous is being set upon by a pack of old ladies intent on beating you with their canes for changing things! And so we muddle on.
In my experience it's the old (or more likely late-middle-aged) men who have aggressive reactions to liturgical change.
Not my experience, that is if those traditional RC masses are anything to go by when I was still an RC. Lots of young families. Maybe be something to do with the lack of transcendency in reformed iturgy (in otherwords, VII liturgy).
Still, they do meet the "traditional" liturgy in modern ways. Few parishes in the olden days pre-V2 could manage the musical caliber to which today's destination traditional liturgies attain, and their pre-V2 masses would have most likely had lackluster music (if any at all). Also they are present at the 1962 rite, doing things in a very 20th century dialogue mass sort of way, chanting the Lord's Prayer along with the priest and replying to the priest in circumstances in which this would have not happened.

My point is simply that these young people are meeting the old mass in a modern way, a way that few of them would have experienced at their local parish church one hundred years ago. A well-done modern rite mass in Latin with equally splendid music and instituted acolytes and lector would probably give them just as much a sense of transcendence. It's great that they have found an ideal worship setting for them, but I'm not sure they can be considered much different from those who seek inclusive and expansive language. To each her/his own.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I don't deny that there were problems pre VII that are overlooked today, mainly the low mass mentality etc. I also think the RC traditionalist movement missed an opportunity in not advocating the traditional liturgy in the vernacular. And don't even get me started on the reforms of Pius X and Pius XII (two pope often held up as pillars of tradition by many traditionalists). As I have said before, if I was pope I'd anathematise both as enemies of tradition. As for music, I'm not sure that it has got better, not in my experience anyway. I always have been and a plainchant man, sticking strictly to the Graduale Romanum, no propers being replaced by hymns (I used to sing in the choir).

Anyway, I digress. When I was an RC the traditionalist group we had in Helsinki was mainly young people in their twenties and thirties. The new liturgy (even though it was served fairly well in our diocese) simply is not the traditional liturgy of the Latin Rite, but a made up liturgy lacking the transcendency of the old rite.

[ 16. June 2013, 22:06: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The new liturgy (even though it was served fairly well in our diocese) simply is not the traditional liturgy of the Latin Rite, but a made up liturgy lacking the transcendency of the old rite.
It all depends how far you back to define "traditional". Certaily the pre-Vatican II mass was the one in used for 400 years but the Ordinary form is not made up - its shape and theology was informed by what we now know better about the shape of early Eucharistic liturgies.

In some ways it is not surprising that transcendency has diminished since Vatican II was partly about moving from the transecendence to immanence.

But I agree with a previous poster that it is certainly possible to attain transcendence with the new rite (or with any rite)but it seems to me that many Roman Catholic parishes in throughout Europe - I would say Germany is the exception - seem unable or unwilling to do this. I have met many Catholics in London who attend Anglican Communion services because they find the "more reverent".
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
it is manifest that the spiritual health not in us is the true referent and that an absent physical health is an allied image or metaphor that immediately leaps to mind. From a medical point of view there is nothing stupid about it.
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place.
There is grace, given by the Holy Spirit, to respond to God's call. Note that it doesn't come from inside us, but from outside.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place.
There is grace, given by the Holy Spirit, to respond to God's call. Note that it doesn't come from inside us, but from outside.
But then you're saying God calls some of us (to spend eternity with Him) and not others (i.e. leaves those others to spend eternity not with Him...?). I know some Christians do believe this but I wanted to spell out the logical conclusion, AIUI, of what you're saying.

Or you're saying that God calls all, but only some choose to respond. But then surely there is in fact some sort of spiritual health in those who choose to respond?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place.
There is grace, given by the Holy Spirit, to respond to God's call. Note that it doesn't come from inside us, but from outside.
But then you're saying God calls some of us (to spend eternity with Him) and not others (i.e. leaves those others to spend eternity not with Him...?). I know some Christians do believe this but I wanted to spell out the logical conclusion, AIUI, of what you're saying.

Or you're saying that God calls all, but only some choose to respond. But then surely there is in fact some sort of spiritual health in those who choose to respond?
This is entirely my problem with Calvinism, by the way!
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
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.
...
When addressing God I tend to follow the example of Jesus in all extemporaneous prayer, not just in the liturgy. This seems to be the obvious thing for any disciple of his to do, rather than thinking that Jesus got it wrong for the 21st Century and correcting him, which seems rather presumptuous to me.
Angus
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Or maybe God calls and he's going to get us all in the end. As Origen said (and Athanasius hinted at) A belief more compatible with Calvinism than with Arminianism.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
the Ordinary form is not made up - its shape and theology was informed by what we now know better about the shape of early Eucharistic liturgies.
This is simply not true and yet it gets repeated ad nauseum. It is the very definition of liturgy by committee that was hashed out on the most spurious of archaeologism and ideologically motivated scholarship that was not just incorrect but completely wrong and has been totally debunked in recent years.

quote:
In some ways it is not surprising that transcendency has diminished since Vatican II was partly about moving from the transecendence to immanence.
That right there is the single most damning condemnation of the Pauline Missal.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
But there is some spiritual health in us, isn't there, in spite of our sin? Or we wouldn't be there in the first place.
There is grace, given by the Holy Spirit, to respond to God's call. Note that it doesn't come from inside us, but from outside.
But then you're saying God calls some of us (to spend eternity with Him) and not others (i.e. leaves those others to spend eternity not with Him...?). I know some Christians do believe this but I wanted to spell out the logical conclusion, AIUI, of what you're saying.

Or you're saying that God calls all, but only some choose to respond. But then surely there is in fact some sort of spiritual health in those who choose to respond?
No,that not what he, or I, am saying and it is not the logical conclusion to anything that's being put forward here.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
the Ordinary form is not made up - its shape and theology was informed by what we now know better about the shape of early Eucharistic liturgies.
This is simply not true and yet it gets repeated ad nauseum. It is the very definition of liturgy by committee that was hashed out on the most spurious of archaeologism and ideologically motivated scholarship that was not just incorrect but completely wrong and has been totally debunked in recent years.

quote:
In some ways it is not surprising that transcendency has diminished since Vatican II was partly about moving from the transecendence to immanence.
That right there is the single most damning condemnation of the Pauline Missal.
Where is the evidence that it has been totally debunked? Certainly not among liturgical scholars who have studied and analysed Eucharistic Origins. In what way is it more made up than the Tridentine rite?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I know that we are still in the general topic of how language is used to approach the Godhead, but can we try to avoid an out-and-out debate over the relative merits or otherwise of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite? (as a personal suggestion I would recommend the words of Pope Emeritus had on this topic as a corrective to the extremes to be found on either side...).

Please also remember that there is nothing wrong with robust but try to keep things respectful. Everything is fine so far but one or two posts have been getting a little near the edge in terms of heatedness.

Thanks all.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Where is the evidence that it has been totally debunked? Certainly not among liturgical scholars who have studied and analysed Eucharistic Origins. In what way is it more made up than the Tridentine rite?
For a debunking of the attribution to Rome, Hippolytus and the Second Century, you could start with Paul Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition. A Commentary, (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 2002). A more recent article can be found here.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Where is the evidence that it has been totally debunked? Certainly not among liturgical scholars who have studied and analysed Eucharistic Origins. In what way is it more made up than the Tridentine rite?
For a debunking of the attribution to Rome, Hippolytus and the Second Century, you could start with Paul Bradshaw et al., The Apostolic Tradition. A Commentary, (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 2002). A more recent article can be found here.
Whilst I cannot disagree with Professor Bradshaw, if we are objecting to liturgies that were not in use in Rome in the 2nd century solely for that reason, as I understand it, there is no evidence at all for the development of the Roman Canon, it just appears, with no obvious chain of development like we can suggest for other early anaphoras.

As Bradshaw would point out, much of his research has merely pointed out quite how much we don't know of how the Early Church worshipped.

I will of course acknowledge that the Canon does at least have a fairly consistent history in Rome itself from the 7th or 8th century, becoming more widespread during Charlemagne's reforms, up until the widespread adoption at Trent. OTOH the anaphora of not-Hippolytus, we cannot offer any certainity of any actual use until the 20th century.

T

[ 19. June 2013, 09:51: Message edited by: TomM ]
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:

Whilst I cannot disagree with Professor Bradshaw, if we are objecting to liturgies that were not in use in Rome in the 2nd century solely for that reason, as I understand it, there is no evidence at all for the development of the Roman Canon, it just appears, with no obvious chain of development like we can suggest for other early anaphoras.

T [/QB]
Yes, Professor Bradshaw makes the point in his latest book, The Eucharistic Liturgies, Their evolution and interpretation published last year that the 1570 Missal purported to restore what it then believed to be an apostolic canon, but any restoration was quite impossible given the synthesis and history of the various elements.

He also argues that one reason for Eucharistic convergence in the late 20th century was how very different the liturgical practices of all churches were from the first few centuries, and how this pointed to a unified way of worship that contrasted sharply with the diverse traditions of modern denominations.

I think one must accept that a disproportionate focus was given to the (so-called) Apostolic Tradition in liturgical revision. But when you look at the Missal of Paul VI in its totality (including the other EPs) there has been an attempt, Prof. Bradshaw says, to move beyond a rather narrow Roman view of the liturgy to embrace the wider earlier catholic liturgical traditions of both east and west.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0