|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Inclusive and Expansive language
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
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?
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
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
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
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
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
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."
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed 'Lord' in English is a contracted form of 'loafguard' as 'Lady' is short for 'loaf dough maker'
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Such a lovely little theory ruined by a nasty little fact!
"Aramaic", he says hopefully from under his umbrella?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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:- erred and straied
- folowed to much
- offended
- left undone
- done
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
