ecusa response to christianity today [Archive]

julian the apostate

29th October 2004, 10:35 AM

Office of Women's Ministries Official Response to Christianity Today's "Weblog: Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship"

Contact:
Rev. Margaret Rose
Office of Women’s Ministries
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212) 922-5354
womensministries@episcopalchurch.org
We have been astounded and grateful for the number of people who have taken an interest in The Office of Women's Ministries of the Episcopal Church through Christianity Today's recent weblog, "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," as posted by Ted Olsen on October 26, 2004.

The material questioned in Olsen's article, "A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine" was sent to us in good faith in response to our recent call for resources. We regret we did not realize that the material was copyright protected. Proper notifications were not included by mistake and so the page has been withdrawn from our website.

We profoundly regret that Christianity Today did not contact us before making claims such as, "…leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities." The resources listed on our website are not approved liturgies of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people’s interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church. Only General Convention has this authority.

The current liturgy project – A Call for Resources: The Women's Liturgy Project – and the Women's Worship Resources section on our website is a grassroots, organic, interactive process. It is an offering to open the awareness of the many voices and needs that exist among people in the church as we all strive to find expressions of our life, love and faith in God.

Brian Augustyn

29th October 2004, 02:08 PM

Rev. Margaret Rose, Office of Women’s Ministries

We have been astounded and grateful for the number of people who have taken an interest in The Office of Women's Ministries of the Episcopal Church through Christianity Today's recent weblog, "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," as posted by Ted Olsen on October 26, 2004.

The material questioned in Olsen's article, "A Women's Eucharist: A Celebration of the Divine Feminine" was sent to us in good faith in response to our recent call for resources. We regret we did not realize that the material was copyright protected. Proper notifications were not included by mistake and so the page has been withdrawn from our website.

We profoundly regret that Christianity Today did not contact us before making claims such as, "…leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities." The resources listed on our website are not approved liturgies of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people’s interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church. Only General Convention has this authority.

The current liturgy project – A Call for Resources: The Women's Liturgy Project – and the Women's Worship Resources section on our website is a grassroots, organic, interactive process. It is an offering to open the awareness of the many voices and needs that exist among people in the church as we all strive to find expressions of our life, love and faith in God.

The Episcopal Church being misrepresented by the "Christian right--?!" Imagine that. ;)

peace,
Brian

PaladinValer

29th October 2004, 09:59 PM

Leave it to self-righteous, hateful, intolerant, psuedo-Christian people to even post an article claiming that.

What utter garbage. What utter hateful lies. What false Christianity.

I'm not surprised that Christianity Today is run by the "Religious Reich;" this is just more proof that it is.

Forgive me for this little rant, but after the continuing problems this forum's been having with people having no respect to Anglican/Old Catholic privacy and rights, not to mention people spreading incorrect information about my own Anglican Communion, but I'm personally just tired of it. I really wish people would be mature, respectful, adult, and, God-forbid, Christian enough to not make, well, you know, of themselves. Is it really that hard?

Ohhhh I got a lot to confess on Sunday I'm so angry...

RobNJ

29th October 2004, 10:04 PM

Inside Edge

1st November 2004, 02:10 AM

I'm not surprised that Christianity Today is run by the "Religious Reich;" this is just more proof that it is...Forgive me for this little rant...That was awesome.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaladinValer again."

ahab

1st November 2004, 05:33 AM

Brian Augustyn

1st November 2004, 11:53 AM

Many people found Jesus too self-righteous, He said seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness, and the wicked would be separated from the righteous, He did not tolerate those who opposed God’s purposes, He called them snakes and vipers who will not escape being condemned to hell.

IMO the good news is that Jesus has given us the way and broken through all that. Jesus is the truth. Hate is what is opposed to anything of the Kingdom of God, intolerance is anything opposed to the Kingdom of God, pseudo Christian isn’t the ‘religious right’ or 'liberals' but anything opposed to trying to follow Jesus 100%.

But did Jesus also teach that it's acceptable to knowingly misrepresent others? Did Jesus just invent stuff to make his adversaries look worse? ("Yea, this brood of vipers dances naked while eating pork and yodeling!") Or did he tell the truth?

Of course he did, but Christianity Today did not.

Brian
:wave:

ahab

1st November 2004, 12:13 PM

Happy Birthday Brian Augustyn,

Yes I think I agree with you that ChristianityToday seemed to have presented something unfairly and incorrectly.

What I don’t agree with is

Leave it to self-righteous, hateful, intolerant, psuedo-Christian people to even post an article claiming that.
At least it puts ChristainityToday in more favourable light.

Have a good day!:wave:

Zacharias

1st November 2004, 03:10 PM

:confused:

molchog

1st November 2004, 09:14 PM

BarbB

2nd November 2004, 12:04 AM

quote removed by staff

(deleted by request) If some Episcopalian leadership wants to be druid or pagan, why don't they just leave the Christian church and set up their heathen churches? (deleted by request) :cry:

PaladinValer

2nd November 2004, 12:18 AM

molchog,

1. Read the OP, which contains the reply
2. I'd love to see evidence that this individual is really a Druid.
3. I find it just a little bit curious that this supposed post was "deleted" (I personally couldn't find it). Sounds like the whole thing was made up
4. As others have posted, this "service" is not an official Episcopal Church liturgy. This, above all, moots everything Christianity Today wrote.
5. This is an Anglican Forum. Unless you are also Anglican, we would appreciate it if you did not argue or debate issues, especially those like this that are completely false and do nothing but spread lies about my Church, in our forum.
6. If sharing information between Christianity and other religions is now "Devil-worship," then by all means, call me a Satanist. [/heavy sarcasm]
7. Read also my post above, which actually shows how God can, in full orthodoxy, be seen as a sort of "Divine Feminin."

ahab

2nd November 2004, 05:36 AM

Hi PaladinValer,

Read also my post above, which actually shows how God can, in full orthodoxy, be seen as a sort of "Divine Feminin." I’ve read it and it doesn't seem to explain, could you expand a little please as the subject of the discussion, that litergy, did seem to me to be to use your words, ‘utter garbage and lies’. Also I dont think referring to your fellow Christians as ‘reich’, self-righteous, hateful, intolerant, psuedo-Christian is acceptable as I believe tolerance is tolerance of Jesus as the truth and the gospel given to us, and this didn’t seem to be in accordance with the truth.

BarbB

3rd November 2004, 06:45 AM

....5. This is an Anglican Forum. Unless you are also Anglican, we would appreciate it if you did not argue or debate issues, especially those like this that are completely false and do nothing but spread lies about my Church, in our forum.

I was confirmed in the Episcopalian Church and if I were near the church I was confirmed in I would still be there!
....7. Read also my post above, which actually shows how God can, in full orthodoxy, be seen as a sort of "Divine Feminin."

Not by me. :(

PaladinValer

3rd November 2004, 01:41 PM

You do not use an Anglican icon and I've heard you a few times disavow the AC, newlamb.

Secondly, to deny God as healer, protector of children, or councelor is to deny the whole of God. Since these things have always been thought to be "feminin" aspects, and God has these aspects, then God does seem to have a "feminin" side.

Thirdly, the historical belief of YHVH has been that He is beyond gender altogether, yet encompacing both masculin and feminin traits. The only reasons why God is called "Him" is due to 1) the ancient false belief that men as superior to women (rejected by orthodox Christianity due to its obviously Gnostic-grounded belief) and 2) God simply prefers a "Father-Son" relationship with "His" Creation, and 3) the English language, unlike the Hebrew and a number of other languages the Bible was translated into early, has no third gender-neutral article. When we see in these manuscripts God being addressed without a gender-specific article, its enough to show that the early Christians agreed with the Jews in the "genderness" of God.

I embrace the fullness of God; the masculin and the feminin. If I didn't, I only have half a God now made worthless do to my own sexism.

ahab

3rd November 2004, 01:56 PM

PaladinValer,

Secondly, to deny God as healer, protector of children, or councelor is to deny the whole of God. True, but who denies that?

Since these things have always been thought to be "feminin" aspects, and God has these aspects, then God does seem to have a "feminin" side. God exhibits feminin characteristics or nature or is described as such but He isnt Divine Feminin, He is our Father in Heaven.

Thirdly, the historical belief of YHVH has been that He is beyond gender altogether, yet encompacing both masculin and feminin traits. And yet Jesus has made the way for us to call Him Father and become Sons as inheritors of the Kingdom. God however is Spirit. This is the revelation of the Word, Jesus and has nothing ultimately to do with any ancient or Gnostic understanding.

PaladinValer

3rd November 2004, 02:14 PM

Who denies it? Anyone who denies God is both masculin and feminin, for those are traits thought of "feminin" not by just "modern" civilization, but ancient Hebrew civilization as well. There likes the problem.

The ancient Jews and Christians would disagree on you about God not being masculin and feminin. And logically, your second paragraph makes no sense.

If you are G, then you have M and F traits
If you are G, then you are D

Are only part of your traits Divine? If so, then you cannot be wholy God. God is God, not some puny demi-god the Gnostics thought He was.

And you obviously don't understand what Gnosticism taught. They taught YHVH was just masculin because they believed man > woman. Genesis 1 shows man = woman. Genesis 2 is more cultural (and shouldn't be taken literally anyhow, for the Gnostics did. And does God actually have "feet?" These are anthropomorphic terms that should never be taken literally, so the entire "Second Creation Story" is obviously not literal), and simply shows why, in Hebrew anthropology, where women are and where men are in terms of relationship with each other. St. Paul says "there are neither man or women..." so obviously this is an erronous belief.

And you've completely either ignored or taken out of context my point of "God prefering a Father-Son relationship with Creation." To turn this to mean "God is male" is illogical, for I actually know women who prefer their children treat them more as a father (and these women treat their children like a father more often too, I might add).

So if G has both M and F traits, and only M traits are D while F traits aren't, how the heck is G then wholy D?

Answer: G cannot be logically. But if G's F traits are also D, equally, then yes, G is wholy D.

ahab

3rd November 2004, 02:34 PM

PaladinValer,

Who dies it? Anyone who dies God is both masculin and feminin,

Denies not dies The ancient Jews and Christians would disagree on you about God not being masculin and feminin.Would disagree on me? Jesus taught the early Christians to be in relationship with our Father in heaven. God is described as having characteristics that are feminin. We have a relationship with our Father in Heaven, well I do anyway.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness”,

“So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them. “

Actually Paul says that we are all one in Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

IMO its best to focus on God the Father rather than in terms of what you understand by some bad earthly mothers or fathers.:)

PaladinValer

3rd November 2004, 06:20 PM

And why is He called our "Father?" Read my post. Repeating the same fallacy of equivocation isn't helping your case.

TomUK

3rd November 2004, 07:21 PM

Well Jesus instructed us to call Him Father.

PaladinValer

3rd November 2004, 07:52 PM

TomUK, and why?

**Repeats his post**

"Because He wishes to have a Father-Son type of relationship with His Creation"

That has nothing to do with God's actual gender, contrary to many people's beliefs.

CSMR

4th November 2004, 03:05 AM

What is all this "masculin" "feminin" business?

ahab

4th November 2004, 06:37 AM

Hi PaladinValer,

Just repeating a fallacy of equivocation mantra doesn’t help your case.

"Because He wishes to have a Father-Son type of relationship with His Creation"

Yes that’s true, that’s why Christian women are sons of God, because they inherit as cultures have sons who inherit. That has nothing to do with God's actual gender, contrary to many people's beliefs. The feminin in ‘Divine feminin’ is gender. If the Father-Son has nothing to do with God’s gender then why did you support the idea of ‘Divine feminin’
However as far as we are concerned as disciples who love Jesus and obey all He commanded and taught we address God as Father.

CSMR

4th November 2004, 02:55 PM

PaladinValer, Ahab, write out 50 times:
masculine, feminine

thereselittleflower

4th November 2004, 04:12 PM

Are only part of your traits Divine? If so, then you cannot be wholy God.
Can you explian what you mean by "you cannot be wholy God" ?

Peace to all!

molchog

4th November 2004, 04:31 PM

Can you explian what you mean by "you cannot be wholy God" ?

Peace to all!
thereselittleflower, with due respect, may i ask what kind of prayer this is, found at the end of your posts,

Theotokos, my mother, you who bore the Lord our God in your womb, you the gate through which he entered into the world lift my prayers up to your Son. Daughter of Zion, I want to eat of this blessed fruit, the blessed fruit of your womb, who hung on a tree, who's flesh is food indeed and blood is drink indeed. The Cross became the tree of life, the altar of our High Priest and Paschal Lamb. Theotokos! Theotokos! Most blessed of all women, pray for me, a sinner

Looks like some mixture of bible terms and statements,

I want to eat the fruit of your womb... urgh!? This sounds... yak!!:sick:

Wiffey

4th November 2004, 04:43 PM

thereselittleflower, with due respect, may i ask what kind of prayer this is, found at the end of your posts,

Theotokos, my mother, you who bore the Lord our God in your womb, you the gate through which he entered into the world lift my prayers up to your Son. Daughter of Zion, I want to eat of this blessed fruit, the blessed fruit of your womb, who hung on a tree, who's flesh is food indeed and blood is drink indeed. The Cross became the tree of life, the altar of our High Priest and Paschal Lamb. Theotokos! Theotokos! Most blessed of all women, pray for me, a sinner

Looks like some mixture of bible terms and statements,

I want to eat the fruit of your womb... urgh!? This sounds... yak!!:sick:
It seems to me that it is a sincere prayer asking the Theotokos (the Mother of Our Lord), to pray for a sinner who desires to fully experience Communion with Jesus Christ through the Sacrament of the Eucharist...

The tone of your closing comment seems disrespectful to Christians who believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

Wiffey

thereselittleflower

4th November 2004, 04:57 PM

thereselittleflower, with due respect, may i ask what kind of prayer this is, found at the end of your posts,

Theotokos, my mother, you who bore the Lord our God in your womb, you the gate through which he entered into the world lift my prayers up to your Son. Daughter of Zion, I want to eat of this blessed fruit, the blessed fruit of your womb, who hung on a tree, who's flesh is food indeed and blood is drink indeed. The Cross became the tree of life, the altar of our High Priest and Paschal Lamb. Theotokos! Theotokos! Most blessed of all women, pray for me, a sinner

Looks like some mixture of bible terms and statements,

I want to eat the fruit of your womb... urgh!? This sounds... yak!!:sick:

Actually, if it were not off topic to this thread I would be happy to eplain what kind of prayer this is. If you would like to come to OBOB and ask, I will share with you what it means, where it came from and answer your questions.

But it is inappropriate to derail this thread with such a discussion.

I hope to see you in OBOB! :)

Peace in Him!

PaladinValer

4th November 2004, 08:07 PM

1. God is God; with both masculine and feminine sides. To deny or reduce one of these sides is to limit God. I find those who do so to be a bit heterodox.
2. Whoopie-doo-dah-day about spelling, CSMR.
3. Double 2 about therese's innocent signature, molchog.
4. Equivacating God's prefered type of relationship with the universe with gender is a logical fallacy.

thereselittleflower

4th November 2004, 08:13 PM

Hi PV

I am still confused about the statement I asked about above . . .

Peace to all!

TomUK

4th November 2004, 10:03 PM

Could i just ask for some clarification about what point we're actually discussing here. I can't believe that anyone is making the point that God is 'male'- such points are bizarre and (i assume) heretical. However, if the point is (and this is what i believe we're discussing) that to refer to God as she is as equally valid as 'he' is, i believe, misinformed. To refer to God the Father as he is not ascribing gender - merely accepting the historical, traditional and christological reference to God as 'Father'. I accept that my point may not be acceptable to all (mention no names PV ;) ) but just for the sake of my sanity, could you clarify the point in discussion before replying. Thanks :)

PaladinValer

4th November 2004, 10:20 PM

TomUK

4th November 2004, 10:27 PM

Well certainly not 'only'. I once heard an excellent sermon from a very high anglo-catholic church, that if it helps us comprehend the love of God then 'she' might be occasionally appropriate. However i object to the arbitrary re labelling of God to satisfy those excessively politically correct individuals who wish to disregard 2000 years of Christian tradition in order to appeal to narrow-minded idiots.

thereselittleflower

4th November 2004, 10:56 PM

I do not doubt that YHVH is "The Father;" that has always been the orthodox view. God prefers a Father-Son relationship, and as such, I view God as my "Heavenly Father." I simply don't see why people use that as a proof that God is a "he" and only a "he."
Can I ask why God has to be viewed in terms of gender? Why can't this simply be God is neither?

I guess I would also ask why would it be necessary to refer to God in any way other than Christ has taught us to refer to Him? "Our Father who art in heaven" ?

Why is there is a need to change this to
O God in heaven,
You who are Mother and Father
to us all,

Why should anyone even consider altering a prayer from scripture like this?

I am sincerely asking as I am trying to understand all this.

Peace in Him!

PaladinValer

5th November 2004, 01:26 AM

1. The reason why many people refuse to see God having a "feminine" half/side is due to taking the same Tradition that God is our Heavenly Father out of context. They believe, or so it seems, that to see God as in any way a feminine force or even "Mother" is to suddenly drop to the level of idolatry and Pagan worship.

2. I do not, nor does my Anglican Church officially, see a reason to suddenly "reword" any text in the Bible, any bit of Holy Tradition, etc, due to "diehard feminists." The Anglican Church has only those official liturgies as they are printed in each provinces' Book of Common Prayer. Despite whatever Christianity Today or, so it seems, a few posters here say, the ECUSA does not hold to this new ritual as any formal liturgy. It is for private devotion only to anyone who wants to use it. And to be honest, until it reached the spotlight, I doubt anymore than 10% (and this is being very generous) of the laity or clergy in my ECUSA even heard of this ritual in the first place. Never did anyone the ministry that "created" that ritual say that this ritual was even a liturgy, let alone an official one.

3. My old college parish, which I do still attend weekly, is using a temporary, non-official liturgy with the blessing of my bishop. It is considered "gender-neutral," yet even in it, it doesn't make any of the sweeping changes like "Father and Mother" in that ritual. This parish has used, to my immediate knowledge, only one other such liturgy which was definitely more "feminine," and I've never heard of it since; it seems my "old" priest and the parish didn't like it. I do not know if they like this one or not, but from what I know of and from the paritioners, they like what is usually used in the Book of Common Prayer; ie: the official liturgies. They find these alternatives refreshing and bring in a new scope to consider (which is what, I believe, this ritual is meant to do; not to change doctrine even in the slightest), but in the end, they didn't like the first one it seemed and I don't think they'll want to keep this new one either.

I will state this only once: The ECUSA has absolutely no official "gender-neutral" or "feminine" liturgies, period. The only thing that will be changed most likely in our liturgies in our next edition of the Book of Common Prayer is the deletion of the filioque clause in the Creeds. I do not know if a "gender-neutral" liturgy is being discussed, but I can assure you that it would not be accepted. I admit I have never asked any of my priests what they think of these rituals as liturgies, but I have a feeling that they would not want to see anything changed at all.

I personally want no change (other than the one I mentioned) in my ECUSA's liturgies; in this edition of the BoCP or in the next edition. Or in the editions after that. Nor do I believe the ECUSA or any province of the AC would do that. We pride ourselves in being a Church that honors Holy Tradition. Obviously, one of these is the notion that God is God the Father; the Heavenly Father. He is everyone's Heavenly Father; to deny that would be to deny an important aspect of Anglican orthodoxy and, more importantly, Christian orthodoxy. I do, however, acknowledge both of God's halves/sides; the masculine and feminine, for I believe it to be important to realize that, since God is beyond any and all gender, that it is because God is not only transcending everything but, yet, is everywhere, although not literally ("semi-penantheism, if you will; note, not semi-pantheism) as via God the Holy Spirit (the Advocate). As such, God would be equally masculine and feminine just as God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, is equally Man and equally God without any domination, imbalance, divided will, or any other nonsense like that.

Inside Edge

5th November 2004, 03:13 AM

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaladinValer again. Bravo!

You may now step down off the soapbox, sir! :)

(And just to be certain, yes, that last comment was in jest!!!!)

ahab

5th November 2004, 05:08 AM

God may exhibit some charateristics that are more feminine than masculine (CSMR :thumbsup: ) but Jesus tells us to pray to the Father in heaven, Jesus prays to the heavenly Father. I pray to my Father in Heaven as Jesus has made the way. Whether logic is fallacy is not going to affect my relationship with my heavenly Father. 'Divine feminin' doesn't relaly mean anything.

julian the apostate

5th November 2004, 11:12 AM

ahab

5th November 2004, 11:34 AM

Yes I can go along with what Julian the apostate has just written.

However, the issue is more than just characteristics that are more sort of feminine. This is much more serious Now this as from today.
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5742&title=American%20'pagan'%20liturgy%20sparks%20protests%20worldwide (http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5742&title=American%20'pagan'%20liturgy%20sparks%20protests%20worldwide)

Also please note the reference to divorce.

As I posted on the other thread, we’ve got bishops already doing this by the looks of it.

http://www.nhepiscopal.org/BishopSe...20preached%20by

My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to "honor [each other] in the Name of God," made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows, asked each other's forgiveness, cried a lot, pledged ourselves to the joint raising of our children, and shared the Body and Blood of Christ.

gtsecc

5th November 2004, 12:32 PM

pmcleanj

5th November 2004, 01:49 PM

I thought it was common knowledge that all churches had a few nuts, but the Bishops were there to make sure orthodoxy was upheald. So, shouldn't their Bishop have smited them or telephoned or something before they had that thing published on the world wide web? This really is "total disregard for the Sacramental unity of the
Anglican Communion."

Bishops are primarily there, to make sure that the pastoral needs of all Christ's people are being met. The Bishop is the chief pastor of the flock, as we symbolize in liturgical processions by his carrying a crook. Priests are delegated the role of pastors, or shepherds, only as undershepherds under the Bishop's oversight.

Now, part of pastoral care is nurturing right thought, or "ortho doxy". But that can't always be accomplished by a quick phone-call saying "toe the line and shut up". People need to communicate their thoughts and ideas, then communicate what is good, as well as what is wrong about those thoughts and ideas, then choose to retain only what is good. The women's unit doesn't promote liturgy. That's not it's purpose. It promotes dialogue. That's a great strength of the Anglican Tradition, that the laity are empowered to explore doctrine and liturgy and incorporate it into their lives, and that they are not immediately muzzled by a strict demand for conformity to dogmatic declarations.

The Women's Unit's accepting a submission and posting it for experimentation and dialogue does not constitute ECUSA promulgating an official liturgy! When reactionary press coverage or authoritarian Bishops misrepresent the Women's Unit's attempts at dialogue, they are doing us all a great disservice, precisely because they are preventing the Bishops from educating their flock in a gentle and respectful manner.

Understand, that the people who propose specific "occasional" liturgies, do so because they have experienced an unmet pastoral need. It doesn't matter one whit to a Jane Pewsitter who is grieving and alienated by her own spiritual experiences, that a thereselittleflower or an ahab doesn't experience the need to pray to God in a way that recognizes God's maternal love. If Jane Pewsitter experiences that need, then the Church needs to care for her somehow. If people reaching out to Jane Pewsitter find liturgical forms that seem to meet her needs, then they need to share those liturgies. They need the input of the greater Church on refining the orthodox elements of the liturgy and removing the unorthodox elements; and the Church needs their liturgical creativity in order to care for all the other Jane Pewsitters out there who experience the same need. Seizing an attempted dialogue about understanding people's legitimate needs, and using it as a springboard for a concerted attack on ECUSA, is cruelly incompassionate on the part of Christianity Today's editors, to whom the people whose needs were being heard by the Women's Unit are apparently irrelevant.

Talking about things is not a disregard for unity. Being afraid to talk for fear of being labled heretic, or because conformity is more important than people's needs, is not Anglican.

thereselittleflower

5th November 2004, 02:54 PM

God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature.

from the catechism of the catholic church
paragraph 239
Does the Catechism ever suggest that we can call God "Mother" ?

In the scriptures God does refer to Himself having feminine characteristics or attributes. . For instance, Jesus says this:
Isa 66:13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Mat 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

However, what I can't find anywhere in the bible or the teaching of the Church is the idea that it is OK to call God "mother" . . .

Do you have such a reference?

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower

5th November 2004, 04:02 PM

Bishops are primarily there, to make sure that the pastoral needs of all Christ's people are being met. The Bishop is the chief pastor of the flock, as we symbolize in liturgical processions by his carrying a crook. Priests are delegated the role of pastors, or shepherds, only as undershepherds under the Bishop's oversight.

Now, part of pastoral care is nurturing right thought, or "ortho doxy". But that can't always be accomplished by a quick phone-call saying "toe the line and shut up". People need to communicate their thoughts and ideas, then communicate what is good, as well as what is wrong about those thoughts and ideas, then choose to retain only what is good. The women's unit doesn't promote liturgy. That's not it's purpose. It promotes dialogue. That's a great strength of the Anglican Tradition, that the laity are empowered to explore doctrine and liturgy and incorporate it into their lives, and that they are not immediately muzzled by a strict demand for conformity to dogmatic declarations.

The Women's Unit's accepting a submission and posting it for experimentation and dialogue does not constitute ECUSA promulgating an official liturgy! When reactionary press coverage or authoritarian Bishops misrepresent the Women's Unit's attempts at dialogue, they are doing us all a great disservice, precisely because they are preventing the Bishops from educating their flock in a gentle and respectful manner. I understand what you are saying, but I haven't found anywhere where the concerns expressed have accused the ECUSA of promulgating an official litturgy.

My understanding is that the concerns expressed rest on the fact that such "exploration" (as you have indicated above is part of the function of the Woman's unit) is even "unofficially" permitted to be promoted, especially at the official ECUSA site. The fact that it was even "unofficially" permitted gives the apperance, that, while not a formal "promulgation" of the ECUSA, it at least has its tacit approval for "exploration".

The concern is should any Church be allowing or condoning even unofficial "exploration" of pagan rites, encouraging those interested to download them and use them?

Understand, that the people who propose specific "occasional" liturgies, do so because they have experienced an unmet pastoral need. It doesn't matter one whit to a Jane Pewsitter who is grieving and alienated by her own spiritual experiences, that a thereselittleflower or an ahab doesn't experience the need to pray to God in a way that recognizes God's maternal love. If Jane Pewsitter experiences that need, then the Church needs to care for her somehow. If people reaching out to Jane Pewsitter find liturgical forms that seem to meet her needs, then they need to share those liturgies. They need the input of the greater Church on refining the orthodox elements of the liturgy and removing the unorthodox elements; and the Church needs their liturgical creativity in order to care for all the other Jane Pewsitters out there who experience the same need. Seizing an attempted dialogue about understanding people's legitimate needs, and using it as a springboard for a concerted attack on ECUSA, is cruelly incompassionate on the part of Christianity Today's editors, to whom the people whose needs were being heard by the Women's Unit are apparently irrelevant. Let me ask you something in regards to this philosohy using a different scenario altogether . .

If member "A" over here feels the need to include drug enduced euphoria into their liturgical experience of worship, should the church allow some groups to develop liturgies that include such practices and share them for otheres to explore becaue they seem to meet "A's" needs?

Talking about things is not a disregard for unity. Being afraid to talk for fear of being labled heretic, or because conformity is more important than people's needs, is not Anglican.When does departure from orthodox belief and thinking become a problem then?

Peace in Him!

Inside Edge

5th November 2004, 04:03 PM

Talking about things is not a disregard for unity. Being afraid to talk for fear of being labled heretic, or because conformity is more important than people's needs, is not Anglican. This is so true. It is one of the primary strengths of the Anglican Church.

julian the apostate

5th November 2004, 04:41 PM

pmcleanj

5th November 2004, 04:44 PM

I do think, that you are coming rather near to debating in our forum, even though you are phrasing your debate points as questions.

I understand what you are saying, but I haven't found anywhere where the concerns expressed have accused the ECUSA of promulgating an official litturgy.

True. In fact, Christianity Today is quite carefully not drawing attention to the distinction that ECUSA has clear, officially promulgated liturgies that are in every way orthodox -- and do not include the liturgy around which they are attempting to brew scandal. They are using instead innuendo to suggest that the exploratory liturgy submitted as a grass-roots submission to the Women's Unit site, constitutes the ECUSA's leadership promoting something. It doesn't.

My understanding is that the concerns expressed rest on the fact that such "exploration" (as you have indicated above is part of the function of the Woman's unit) is even "unofficially" permitted to be promoted, especially at the official ECUSA site.

Many conservative churches are apparently concerned that the laity is allowed to explore their spirituality rather than having their spirituality dictated to them from a rather narrow suite of options approved by a central authority. Many conservative churches apparently do feel threatened that we allow people to discuss and analyse many things, from the textual criticism of Scripture to the accuracy of claims made about Tradition, to the efficacy and flexibility of liturgical forms. It would be nice -- loving even -- if they tried to understand our perspective, that the rewards of fearless questioning exceed the risks, rather than just vilifying the idea. But vilifying those who are different has a certain inherent pleasure, especially if they frighten you.

The concern is should any Church be allowing or condoning even unofficial "exploration" of pagan rites, encouraging those interested to download them and use them?

Lighting candles, singing and chanting, burning incense, processing, and reciting sacred texts are all pagan rites. The idea that the Church should encourage the use of these pagan rites has been called into question, rejected by some Christians, accepted by others. The fact is that pagans are people too, and unsurprisingly the worship-acts that speak at a spiritual level to people who are pagan, also speak at a spiritual level to people who are Christian. What Christians need to do is ask, about the spiritual acts in which they engage, which ones help build their relationship with God, and help build the Kingdom. An open discussion with informed people helps answer that question. So yes, we should be encouraging people to download different rites and study them. Yes, people should use the ones that they discern are godly. Yes, people should not only eschew, but discuss and counsel against the ones that are ungodly. And no, Christianity Today should not muzzle such discussion by fomenting a scandal.

If member "A" over here feels the need to include drug enduced euphoria into their liturgical experience of worship, should the church allow some groups to develop liturgies that include such practices and share them for otheres to explore becaue they seem to meet "A's" needs? Now you are using argument ad absurdium -- a debate technique not usually characteristic of sincere questioning.

A certain compassionate subtlety is called for in responding to people's needs.
Jane Pewsitter's finds herself alienated by being unable to experience God's maternal love. A liturgy is proposed taken from a pagan source -- it facilitates an experience of maternal love, but in a way that does not build the kingdom. Now if the dialogue is allowed to continue, the church looks at how to draw a superior experience of maternal love, out of a liturgy that clearly connects that experience to God in an orthodox manner. A dialogue is an ongoing activity through which we find resources that are both effective and adequate and right-thinking.

If "A" experiences a spiritual need that he addresses by a drug-induced euphoria, the Church needs to explore that need as well. It needs to find ways to meet the need. A realistic example of this would be among First Nations Christians, who experience Christianity ambiguously due to the grievious harm Christian missionaries inflicted on their culture. Where peyote or the steam hut are part of the cultural spirituality, and Christianity is seen as an enemy of the culture, a First Nations Christian might indeed feel a need to unite his Christian worship with these strong cultural practices. The Church in that case needs to courageously face its complicity in the sins of cultural genocide, and make reparation, in a way that will remove the negative associations with which orthodox, traditional liturgies have become laden. In Canada, in the wake of the Residential Schools scandal, the Anglican Church is attempting to do just that. (You will have to explore for yourself how the Vatican Church has responded to its role in the Residential Schools scandal.) But the dialogue has to take place first, before real orthodox solutions can be found to real people's needs.

When does departure from orthodox belief and thinking become a problem then?

Looking outward is not departure. Failing to look outward is not orthodoxy; it is studied ignorance.

thereselittleflower

5th November 2004, 07:38 PM

thereselittleflower<<However, what I can't find anywhere in the bible or the teaching of the Church is the idea that it is OK to call God "mother" . . .

therese, pretend you called God , mother, and contemplated God as not just father but mother

what do you think would happen, is it a sin? is it a sin to even think it? will God look down on you less favorably, love you less, accuse you of sin?

Not at all . . in fact I have done so . ..

You are asking me about meditating on this . .and of course, I could easily do so just meditating on the scripture I gave as examples above . . .

Does that mean I should feel comfortable in changing the scripture regarding the Lord's prayer in the way it was posted in the woman's page at the EC's site?

Personally, I see a line here . . but my purpose in asking my questions is to better understand where you all are at with this whole thing . . .I want to understand . .

Peace in Him!

thereselittleflower

5th November 2004, 08:07 PM

I do think, that you are coming rather near to debating in our forum, even though you are phrasing your debate points as questions.
I am very sorry you feel this way . . my intent is to try to understand. :)

True. In fact, Christianity Today is quite carefully not drawing attention to the distinction that ECUSA has clear, officially promulgated liturgies that are in every way orthodox -- and do not include the liturgy around which they are attempting to brew scandal. They are using instead innuendo to suggest that the exploratory liturgy submitted as a grass-roots submission to the Women's Unit site, constitutes the ECUSA's leadership promoting something. It doesn't.
Of course, there are different ways to promote things, some are active, some are passive and quiet . . . I am sure you can understand how from the outside look ing in it can appear to be very scandelous. :)

That is why I came here, to understand the whole issue better from the inside . .

Many conservative churches are apparently concerned that the laity is allowed to explore their spirituality rather than having their spirituality dictated to them from a rather narrow suite of options approved by a central authority. Many conservative churches apparently do feel threatened that we allow people to discuss and analyse many things, from the textual criticism of Scripture to the accuracy of claims made about Tradition, to the efficacy and flexibility of liturgical forms. It would be nice -- loving even -- if they tried to understand our perspective, that the rewards of fearless questioning exceed the risks, rather than just vilifying the idea. But vilifying those who are different has a certain inherent pleasure, especially if they frighten you.
Just to share my perspective on this, I have, as a Catholic convert, learned to not be afraid of any examiniation of my faith, to see if it stands up to close scrutiny . . it always has . . .

What I am trying to understand is why such an examination of one's faith would need to entail experimentation with/exploration of practices and beliefs that are decidedly non-christian.

See, to me that is like saying to really know that your belief that LSD is harmful to you and should be turned away from at all costs, you should put that belief to the test by exploring using LSD . . .

It just doesn't make sense to me . .

So, I am trying to understand . . . .

Is what you are sharing the general feeling of the Episcopal Church? Is this the feeling of segment of the Church and if so, how prevalent do you think it is?

Lighting candles, singing and chanting, burning incense, processing, and reciting sacred texts are all pagan rites.
Do you mean pagan rites or religious rites?

The idea that the Church should encourage the use of these pagan rites has been called into question, rejected by some Christians, accepted by others. The fact is that pagans are people too, and unsurprisingly the worship-acts that speak at a spiritual level to people who are pagan, also speak at a spiritual level to people who are Christian. What Christians need to do is ask, about the spiritual acts in which they engage, which ones help build their relationship with God, and help build the Kingdom. An open discussion with informed people helps answer that question. So yes, we should be encouraging people to download different rites and study them. Yes, people should use the ones that they discern are godly. Yes, people should not only eschew, but discuss and counsel against the ones that are ungodly. And no, Christianity Today should not muzzle such discussion by fomenting a scandal.
Can I ask then, in your opinion, was the rite that was put up on the woman's page that caused all this raucus, one you could see being considerd as appropriate for use by those in the Church interested in doing so?

Now you are using argument ad absurdium -- a debate technique not usually characteristic of sincere questioning.
Not at all . . just tying to get a handle on the philosophy behind the idea . . .the philosophy should transcend the immediate topic and be able to be applied to another issue . . . nothing absurd about it. . .

A certain compassionate subtlety is called for in responding to people's needs.
Jane Pewsitter's finds herself alienated by being unable to experience God's maternal love. A liturgy is proposed taken from a pagan source -- it facilitates an experience of maternal love, but in a way that does not build the kingdom. Now if the dialogue is allowed to continue, the church looks at how to draw a superior experience of maternal love, out of a liturgy that clearly connects that experience to God in an orthodox manner. A dialogue is an ongoing activity through which we find resources that are both effective and adequate and right-thinking.
Who should be the ones doing this then? Should it be left up to laity?

If "A" experiences a spiritual need that he addresses by a drug-induced euphoria, the Church needs to explore that need as well. It needs to find ways to meet the need. A realistic example of this would be among First Nations Christians, who experience Christianity ambiguously due to the grievious harm Christian missionaries inflicted on their culture. Where peyote or the steam hut are part of the cultural spirituality, and Christianity is seen as an enemy of the culture, a First Nations Christian might indeed feel a need to unite his Christian worship with these strong cultural practices. The Church in that case needs to courageously face its complicity in the sins of cultural genocide, and make reparation, in a way that will remove the negative associations with which orthodox, traditional liturgies have become laden. In Canada, in the wake of the Residential Schools scandal, the Anglican Church is attempting to do just that. (You will have to explore for yourself how the Vatican Church has responded to its role in the Residential Schools scandal.) But the dialogue has to take place first, before real orthodox solutions can be found to real people's needs.
I am not familiar with the "Residential Schools" scandal . .

So, in the hypothetical example I asked about above . . would it be considered appropriate for someone to develop a liturgy that includes mind altering drugs, post it for people to discuss, even download to "explore" which could include trying it, in order to discover what the needs of member "A" really are?

Looking outward is not departure. Failing to look outward is not orthodoxy; it is studied ignorance.
I guess we can have different views as to how "looking outward" can look . . . but thank you for sharing your opinions and takng the time to respond to my questions.

Peace in Him!

pmcleanj

5th November 2004, 08:53 PM

I am sure you can understand how from the outside look ing in it can appear to be very scandelous.
Particularly when someone -- in this case the editors of Christianity Today -- have made an effort to capitalize on making it look scandalous.

What I am trying to understand is why such an examination of one's faith would need to entail experimentation with/exploration of practices and beliefs that are decidedly non-christian.

That someone feels the need to explore non-Traditional practices, or explore using LSD, indicates that they have a need that is going unmet by the Traditional/non-LSD-using practices to which they have been exposed. We can express shock and horror at their attempts to meet their needs, or we can accept it as a strong message to us, the Church, that we have let them down. I'd rather put my effort into addressing the latter concern, since that would be constructive rather than condemnatory. If we refuse to see what people, in their neediness, are trying; then we can't question ourselves and we can't respond.

Yes, I think listening to people in need in a non-condemnatory manner, in order to understand their needs so that we can respond in a manner that is both orthodox *and* adequate, is the general feeling of the Episcopal Church. It's not common -- rare as to be nearly unheard-of -- to feel that explicitely feminine spirituality is a driving need sufficient to justify replacing traditional God imagery with imagery of the Queen of Heaven. Feeling feminine spirituality as an unquiet unmet but unspoken need, is however probably more common. The rare Anglican who is willing to voice the more shocking alternative probably (at least if we can focus on the people in need instead of on all the outsiders who are enjoying the scandal) helps us make us more sensitive to the lesser neediness of that larger minority.

When I said candle-lighting et cetera are pagan rites, I meant pagan rites. I know parishioners who left their low-Church parish for ever after fifty years, because a new priest put candles on the altar. I think they were narrow-minded to sacrifice a relationship with their brothers and sisters in Christ, over adiaphora like whether there are candles on the altar, but they felt they couldn't risk the association with idolatry. I respect their decision, and understanding it makes me also more tolerant of people whom I find to be idolatrous.

Do you mean pagan rites or religious rites?

Can I ask then, in your opinion, was the rite that was put up on the woman's page that caused all this raucus, one you could see being considerd as appropriate for use by those in the Church interested in doing so?
If you will look further up this thread, I've already posted my thoughts. It's not liturgy. It's clearly misnamed as eucharist. It could have value, in particular communities, but I think it would need to be surrounded by a lot of teaching. I'm uncomfortable with several aspects of it. But rather than condemn it, I would like to learn from, and teach to, those who would be interested in using it.

I participated in, and consulted on, a great many alternative liturgies relating to feminine spirituality during the Ecumenical Decade. It was for many participants a much deeper catechetical experience to examine liturgy in the light of a practical need, than in the abstract. Such teaching is the job of the whole church: laity, priests, deacons and bishops. God gives insight and teaching ability as God wills.

So, in the hypothetical example I asked about above . . would it be considered appropriate for someone to develop a liturgy that includes mind altering drugs, post it for people to discuss, even download to "explore" which could include trying it, in order to discover what the needs of member "A" really are?

As I said, it's reasonable to expect people downloading something, to use some discernment in deciding to what degree they should use it. Since the Women's Unit site was a clearing-house for submissions from many different sources, it's reasonable to expect that some would be unexceptional, and some would probably be never used except for discussion. Priests and Bishops do tend to consult on what liturgies people actually do use, which strengthens the basis for discernment.

thereselittleflower

5th November 2004, 09:02 PM

H pmcleanj

Thank you again for you answer . . . I am gong to take some time to mull this over . . I appreciate your willingness to discuss it. :)

Peace in Him!

Inside Edge

6th November 2004, 05:36 PM

That this form of litergy is being discussed as I have shown is already being carried out as I have shown by the evidence from the gay bishop communion breaker Gene Robinson who has believes he has the power to separate what God has joined as long as he goes back to the church he got married in!!
What does Gene Robinson have to do with this discussion?

PaladinValer

6th November 2004, 06:30 PM

1. Christianity Today is dead wrong as we have proven.
2. I find your insults extremely childish.
3. I echo what Inside Edge asked
4. I remind you that this forum has been designated as a "no-homosexual-debate" forum by the mods here in STR.
5. Your "love" has been nothing more other than to 1) upset the peace that has been established between conservatives, moderates, liberals in the AC as well as those in an Anglican-heritage church and the Old Catholics as well 2) create problems 3) violate rules 4) post nothing but negativity. That isn't love.

gtsecc

6th November 2004, 06:59 PM

Understand, that the people who propose specific "occasional" liturgies, do so because they have experienced an unmet pastoral need. Are you suggesting divorce is an unmet pastoral need which requires discussion, including proposed liturgical ceremonies to "un do" the sacrament of marriage? I thought that went too far.

AveMaria

6th November 2004, 07:44 PM

For heaven's sake, why does everything always have to boil down to Liberals vs. Conservatives? There's room at the table for all of us, and that is the greatest strength of Anglicanism!

PaladinValer

6th November 2004, 09:52 PM

Molchog,

1. Did they act in such a fashion when they deliberately lied about my church?
2. Did you notice that many so-called "conservatives" agreed with my post? (I will not offer names in respect of their privacy)
3. I do not know if you are Anglican, but it would be appreciative of you to either "bear your flag" if you are or do not come in here and debate issues.

AveMaria, tell that to those who've unfortunately come into our forum and disrupted the peace that was here that did exist between not just conservative, moderate, and liberal Anglicans, but also between us and 1) "Independent" Anglicans like Colabomb and 2) Old Catholics. I would love it if things went back to what they used to be; when people were respectful with each other, but I fear those days, because of a few (again, I will not give names) do not seem to want this.

AveMaria

6th November 2004, 10:04 PM

RobNJ

6th November 2004, 10:29 PM

I could type til I'm blue in the face (hmm, mixed metaphors don't work too well!) but it just seems uber-trendy to slam ECUSA these days!*Scratching my head and trying to think of topics that don't involve 'Christianity Today', Bishop Robinson, or the Windsor Report*

Well, it's before my time here... were there Rite I vs. Rite II debates? ;)

edited to say oops, that might only interest the ECUSA folks...next topic!!!

julian the apostate

6th November 2004, 11:40 PM

PS TO LITTLE FLOWER:

sorry

Inside Edge

7th November 2004, 12:57 AM

For heaven's sake, why does everything always have to boil down to Liberals vs. Conservatives? There's room at the table for all of us, and that is the greatest strength of Anglicanism! Tell me about it.

I haven't been in the STR thread long enough to know what the "good old days" are like; in fact, I wouldn't mind one bit if there was a thread or sub-section where things like homosexuality etc could be debated and discussed amongst Anglicans in general.

What really, really, really drives me up the wall are completely irrelevant posts, like the most recent one by ahab in this thread. Even if there's some rationale behind it, I think it's reasonable to expect that it be explained up front, especially when it references a point of controversy. Otherwise, it comes off as nothing more than trolling or a cheap shot.

Not cool.

ahab

7th November 2004, 11:45 AM

Hi Inside Edge,

The relationship was to the part of the article about divorce and I immediately connected it to the quote I took from Gene Robinson on the New Hampshire Diocese webpages concerning divorce. My point was that IMO the proposed litergy isnt far removed from what some bishops are doing

ahab

7th November 2004, 11:51 AM

therese, pretend you called God , mother, and contemplated God as not just father but motherI have never called our Father in Heaven mother as He always answers me when I call Him Father. After all its through Jesus that we have access to our Father, we show love by obeying all Jesus taught.
what do you think would happen, is it a sin? is it a sin to even think it? will God look down on you less favorably, love you less, accuse you of sin?
Well I dont really think it is a sin but are you sure it is He answers? As to less favourably, God has already loved the world so much that He sent His Son Jesus to die for us, so all who believe in Jesus, male or female are Son's of God by the blood of Jesus .. yes?

Inside Edge

7th November 2004, 03:41 PM

The relationship was to the part of the article about divorce and I immediately connected it to the quote I took from Gene Robinson on the New Hampshire Diocese webpages concerning divorce. My point was that IMO the proposed litergy isnt far removed from what some bishops are doingOk. But this wasn't at all clear in the original comments. I think you need to take special care to be very explicit and concise when you decide to reference issues or people who are easily tied to [other] controversies.

so all who believe in Jesus, male or female are Son's of God by the blood of Jesus .. yes? I don't claim to have any official Church support on this one, but my opinion is NO. God gave us gender, and I don't believe He would expect us to assume an all-inclusive, gender-spanning label that is an actual masculine or feminine term. That is, I don't think He intends or wills women to consider themselves "Sons of God" or men to consider themselves "Daughters of God."

We're all children of God, male and female, sons and daughters, each as is applicable to our earthly gender. I see nothing instructive or constructive about lumping us all together under the masculine label.

God is refferred to most often as "Father" largely because that is how civilization found it easiest to do so. God appeared authoritative, commanding and demanding of respect, a protector, a provider, etc. Largely patriarchal, these attribute were typical of the male role in society, and so it was intuitive to relate to God as male.

I think it's bizarre and almost ridiculous to consider God has having gender. We call Him Father out of tradition and/or by way of how we wish to relate to Him personally. I think those of us who can truly call God "Mother," (i.e. relate to God in such a way, not simply to rock the boat or make a point) are far more enlightened and closer to his presence than I am. Relating to the Christian God in such a way is evidence of transcending the cultural and traditional bounds humanity has assigned to God and worshipped under for millenia. No small feat.

ahab

7th November 2004, 05:18 PM

Hi Inside Edge,

I agree that the link wasn’t exactly clear in the original comments, except both references concerned bizzare ideas of divorce. Of course that bad king Ahab was keen on asherah poles.
I think you need to take special care to be very explicit and concise when you decide to reference issues or people who are easily tied to [other] controversies.Yes I know and yet describing some at Christianity Today as religious ‘reich’ wasn’t exactly careful.
IMO by implication of Sonship we are all one in Christ Jesus. I sometimes say daughters in Christ Jesus 2 Cor 6:18, but also that women are Sons of God as in inheritance Gal 3:26.
God is refferred to most often as "Father" largely because that is how civilization found it easiest to do so.I would completely disagree with that. Certain women were prominent in the gospel, astonishingly to the culture, however Jesus is recorded as praying to His Father in heaven and telling us to do the same so I can only vouch for Father, I can’t vouch for your idea of mother, IMO that seems to be man's idea not revelation from GodWe call Him Father out of tradition and/or by way of how we wish to relate to Him personally. I don’t. I call Him my Father because Jesus has revealed Him to me as my Heavenly Father. I am enlightened by Jesus according to the scriptures, not enlightened by parts of the present western culture and gender confusion.

Polycarp1

7th November 2004, 05:21 PM

I just want to add something here -- and I'm constrained by issues of confidentiality from saying much. But:
1. Yes, the liturgy was written -- for a very specific circumstance -- and posted online for discussion purposes only.
2. A non-Anglican group has been intentionally spreading lies about it and its authors. Therefore, believe only the tiniest fraction of what you read about this, even from allegedly reputable sources.
3. The above can be relied on implicitly, if you feel you can trust me; I do have "inside information" about it that I'm not at liberty to share.

molchog

7th November 2004, 05:58 PM

For heaven's sake, why does everything always have to boil down to Liberals vs. Conservatives?
you have answere your question, why, for heaven's sake, for gospel's sake, for truth's sake.

Inside Edge

7th November 2004, 07:52 PM

Yes I know and yet describing some at Christianity Today as religious ‘reich’ wasn’t exactly careful.You're correct, and I'll admit that although I understood and liked Valer's phrasing, I should not have jumped in public support of it so quickly.

Certain women were prominent in the gospel, astonishingly to the culture, however Jesus is recorded as praying to His Father in heaven and telling us to do the same so I can only vouch for FatherAnd this is why we will never agree (which is fine, as far as I am concerned). First of all, although some women were prominent in the old testament, it was patriarchal civilization after patriarchal civilization. Women were not (in the vast majority) the authoritarian rulers, the protectors, the doler-outers of wrath. Jesus addressed God as his father because he was part of that society. It would do him no good to try to explain a genderless God. The fact that there were virgin birth claims complicates matters: in average human's eyes, God must be male, because Jesus' mortal parent was female. So, my feeling on the issue is that Jesus just did what came natural to relate to his life and times. He didn't every bring it up because, well, there were far more important and pressing matters.

It's true I have no biblical case for accepting God's title as "Mother," and I don't consider it wrong to play it safe and stick to that form of address. I just don't see any evidence to say it's wrong to accept him as a mother-role as well, at times, or from a certain point of view.

pmcleanj

7th November 2004, 08:25 PM

Are you suggesting divorce is an unmet pastoral need which requires discussion, including proposed liturgical ceremonies to "un do" the sacrament of marriage? I thought that went too far.

It is apparant to anyone who has helped clean up the metaphorical carnage remaining after the metaphorical road-wreck of a marriage that ends in divorce, that tremendous pastoral needs are often left unmet in that circumstance. Divorce itself is not an "unmet pastoral need". It is a social and legal reality. Healing those who have been hurt by and through divorce, nurturing the lives that still need to be lived in the wake of divorce, those are pastoral needs. And, yes, those needs very often are not met by the Church. Divorced persons often simply stop attending church, experiencing the failure of their marriage and the condemnation of their brothers and sisters as evidences that the Church's teachings on sacrament and forgiveness are at best unrealistic and at worst outright lies.

Of course, you will never meet in Church divorced people who own such experiences. You will meet them in the playgrounds of daycares where single working moms drag themselves after a hard day, at the zoo on Saturday where the dads hang out during their weekly visitation, at the waiting room of the Family Counsellor's office or the reading room of the self-help bookstore: in a safe place where they may guess that you are "one of them" and therefor trustworthy.

I want to belong to the kind of church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes at three in the morning. The kind of church where divorced people receive encouragement, not condemnation. Where people who face divorce but eschew vindictiveness have the church's support in going forward in that resolve.

But be clear on what I am saying, and am not saying. I am NOT saying that, because the need exists, we need a liturgy to address it. I AM saying that, because an ad-hoc liturgy has been created, we the Church need to wake up to the need that inspired whatever ad-hoc liturgy we are busy being shocked by, and do something to address the need.

In the case of divorce, perhaps we need to anull marriages that show evidence of never having been truly a joining of two persons into one flesh (seems legalistic to me, but other communions do it). Perhaps we need to establish "widow's-and-orphans houses" for single mothers and their children, so that they can live chastely without remarrying -- because it's hard to find scriptural arguments that condemn divorce in the absence of remarriage. Perhaps we need better couselling programmes, both pre- and post-nuptial counselling. Perhaps we need healing liturgies for divorce, just not the one that was suggested.

But I'm hearing a pretty clear wake-up call that we need to do something!

gtsecc

7th November 2004, 09:07 PM

But I'm hearing a pretty clear wake-up call that we need to do something!
Again, your eloquence amazes me. I too want a church that makes all people feel loved and encouraged. I would also love to see the Church do more on the front end of the marriage, reducing the "need" for a divorce. I don't think an extra day of pre-marital counseling is going to change things.

This begs the question: Do "Christians" have a lower divorce rate than secular folks?

AveMaria

7th November 2004, 09:26 PM

This begs the question: Do "Christians" have a lower divorce rate than secular folks?
Sadly, no, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference in divorce rate. In fact, some studies have suggested that evangelical Christians, in particular, have a higher divorce rate. (I'll wager a guess this is related to the fact that this group is less likely to cohabitate before marriage?). (Googling 'Christian divorce rate' will pull up many articles about these studies, plus critical articles. I won't try and summarize, it would be too lengthy and complicated).

ahab

8th November 2004, 06:00 AM

Hi PolyCarp1

And this is why we will never agree. I guess so.:) My point was however that the way Jesus dealt with some women in that society was outrageous and the testimony of the women’s account of the empty tomb was not valid in that society so why pray to God the Father just because of the society? God is Spirit and He is like a Father to us his sons. Jesus describes heaven and hell in terms we can understand, but He addresses His Father in Heaven and tells us to do the same. We can’t know God except Father because we have no spiritual revelation of God as a mother.

I think I agree with you however that Jesus being led by the Holy Spirit to do and say what he saw and heard the Father do IMO did involve sensitivity to time and place and culture, such as when Jesus instructs to tell or not to tell others of healings etc.

Blessings to you Polycarp1

Polycarp1

8th November 2004, 03:27 PM

Hi PolyCarp1

I guess so.:) My point was however that the way Jesus dealt with some women in that society was outrageous and the testimony of the women’s account of the empty tomb was not valid in that society so why pray to God the Father just because of the society? God is Spirit and He is like a Father to us his sons. Jesus describes heaven and hell in terms we can understand, but He addresses His Father in Heaven and tells us to do the same. We can’t know God except Father because we have no spiritual revelation of God as a mother.

I think I agree with you however that Jesus being led by the Holy Spirit to do and say what he saw and heard the Father do IMO did involve sensitivity to time and place and culture, such as when Jesus instructs to tell or not to tell others of healings etc.

Blessings to you Polycarp1
I don't have a lot of disagreement with what you said -- God is not like anything human; He is beyond our ability to conceive. But He does resemble various human roles -- the King on his Throne, the loving Father, etc. And it was Jesus Himself who taught us to use "Father" as the appropriate image of Him. That does not, however, mean that other images are incorrect -- He loves us as a mother tenderly loves her infant child; He forgives us like a governor granting a pardon; etc. It was Jesus who compared Him to an unjust judge, to make a point about perserverance in time of trouble.

However, it was not me but Inside Edge whom you quoted and responded to, just to clarify matters.

julian the apostate

9th November 2004, 02:32 AM

polycarp<<It was Jesus who compared Him to an unjust judge, to make a point about perserverance in time of trouble.

i never thought of it that way before
thanks!!! any other thoughts you have on that parable along that line

thanks again-- ps where have you been lately

CSMR

9th November 2004, 04:31 AM

Well, it's before my time here... were there Rite I vs. Rite II debates? ;)
edited to say oops, that might only interest the ECUSA folks...next topic!!!
You have it all wrong! You should be using rite A, no rite B, yes rite B.

ahab

9th November 2004, 04:59 AM

Hi PolyCarp1

That does not, however, mean that other images are incorrect -- He loves us as a mother tenderly loves her infant child

Yes I agree that true, He does.:)

ahab

9th November 2004, 06:41 AM

As to the OP, and having read the stuff, the amazement isn’t that Christianity Today jumped at it but the response of the Office of Women’s Ministries. 'Ministries'?

The resources listed on our website are not approved liturgies of the Episcopal Church. These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people’s interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church. Only General Convention has this authority.

IMO, if this stuff is designed to spark dialogue it certainly needs to spark the reaction from Christianity Today. This stuff may be enlightening to some but it isnt enlightening according to the gospel we have received from Jesus Christ and His disciples. That we have this sort of stuff proposed for discussion makes one wonder just where Jesus might be allowed to be incorporated?

Well done and thanks to Christianity Today for raising this stuff to our attention.

prodromos

9th November 2004, 11:12 AM

http://www.ird-renew.org/Episcopal/Episcopal.cfm?ID=987&c=21

A Letter of Repentance from The Rev. William Melnyk

November 4, 2004

This morning, the IRD received a copy of the following letter of repentance sent from Rev. William Melnyk to his bishop. We are grateful for his humble and direct letter. We hope that the leaders of the Episcopal Church?s Office of Women?s Ministries will likewise repent of that office?s promotion of neo-paganism. We also hope that this direct act of recantation of wrong and reaffirmation of the historic faith of the Church will serve as a model for other Episcopal leaders who have been called to express regret for their actions in the context of ?the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ? (Windsor Report, paragraph 134).

To the IRD,

I have today sent this letter to my Bishop. My wife [The Rev. Glyn Lorraine Ruppe-Melnyk] has sent a similar letter:

Dear Bishop,

Recently it has been brought to light by several agencies and individuals that I have been involved in work with Druid organizations in the United States and England, exploring the relationships between Christian and pre-Christian Druid spirituality and theology. These individuals and agencies have presented you with pages of documentation of my activities from the internet. You and I have discussed this material, and you have pointed out to me that it is the opinion of the church that my involvement, writings, and activities go beyond the bounds expected of a Christian and a Christian priest.

I affirm to you with all my heart it was never my intention to engage in such error, but only to help others who had lost connection to the Church to find a way to reconnect. I also thought that there was much in our early British heritage that could help those of us in the Church to broaden our understanding of Anglican tradition.

I was wrong. I repent of and recant without qualification anything and everything I may have said or done which is found to be in conflict with the Baptismal Covenant, and the historical Creeds of the Church. With God as my witness, I reaffirm my belief in the historical creeds of the Church, and the Baptismal Covenant, and reaffirm to you my faith, as expressed in that covenant. I am resigning my membership in the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids, as a sign of my repentence.

I have been a follower of Jesus Christ since my Baptism in 1947, and a faithful Deacon and Priest of the Church, with the exception of the error admitted above, since 1981. It is my desire to continue as such, and I ask for the mercy of the Church, and of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

The Rev. W. William Melnyk

I now take pains to publicly affirm this statement, and to thank the contributors to the various Anglican weblogs for bringing this to my attention and helping me to see the truth.

PaladinValer

9th November 2004, 11:28 AM

1. Those errant priests did the right thing. However,
2. Though they may have meant that ritual as a form of manicheanistic Christianity-Druidism, that doesn't mean that is was totally in error. Origen himself was, although officially a heretic, an amazing and strong defender of the orthodox concept of the Blessed Trinity, and we today have much to thank him for.

God can be preceived as feminine. There is nothing doctrinally incorrect, wrong, or blasphemous about it. If God wants to act as per traditionally feminine, then that is God's business, and we should recognize it. To do so would be to not wholy understand what little we can of God.

I would, however, like to express the fact that no one Anglican's post has ever deaffirmed that God is addressed as Father. Try to find one; you cannot. Even some conservatives have agreed that, though God is traditionally called "Father," it isn't out of specified gender but role in human-divine relationship and as role in the Blessed Trinity. That was simply the point we are trying to make. We were not trying to promote any form of Neopaganism, manicheanism, or any "new doctrine" outside the Holy Scriptures, Traditions, and Reason of Christian Church history or of the Anglican Church. Not one bit.

Now that this new "crisis" is over, I personally hope that this forum can begin its healing.

prodromos

9th November 2004, 11:30 AM

Rev. Melnyk made some comments at the bottom of this article prior to his apology.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1589

On a lighter note, a number of men felt left out of the female rite and produced their own Men's liturgy (http://balaamsass.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=6)

John.

ahab

9th November 2004, 11:55 AM

Hi PaladinValer,

God can be preceived as feminine The issue is that God can’t be perceived as feminine, He may have feminine traits but the revelation of G-d is through Jesus is that He is to us our Father and like a Father as we are Sons. There is nothing doctrinally to suggest God is feminine, but everything to suggest we refer to Him in the masculine and that He exhibits feminine triats.

If God wants to act as per traditionally feminine, then that is God's business, and we should recognize it IMO if God wants to act as feminine then He could have told us. That’s God’s business. But He didn’t, that’s my business.

We were not trying to promote any form of Neopaganism, manicheanism, or any "new doctrine" outside the Holy Scriptures, Traditions, and Reason of Christian Church history or of the Anglican Church. Not one bit. And yet so many believe this is doing so.

Blessings :)

Inside Edge

9th November 2004, 02:09 PM

There is nothing doctrinally to suggest God is feminine, but everything to suggest we refer to Him in the masculine and that He exhibits feminine triats.There is a difference in referring to God in the masculine, versus God being masculine (in essence, by nature, etc). To say that because we have traditions of referring to God as a male must therefore mean God is male, to me, is to stamp God with a giant, human limitation. It closes one's mind to understanding a being that is far, far beyond our comprehension.

ahab

9th November 2004, 02:32 PM

Hi Inside Edge,

Yes I agree, no Devine Feminine then. God is Spirit but we refer to Him as He. We worship Him our Father in Heaven.:thumbsup:

Rev. Smith

9th November 2004, 02:46 PM

It is perfectly possable to embrace the concept of "divine feminie" without reaching into Druid, pagen or neo-pagen "new age" rights. For those of us that still use the Catholic scripture we are instructed in the devine feminine throught the Wisdom books. Sophia, Wisdom is taken by many to be an alternative name of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Wisdom is reffered to as "she" throught the book of Wisdom. Further Wisdom seems to fulfill the functions of the Spirit, infusing men with holiness and union with God, and the desire of things Godly.

If Our trinity is the Father Creator, the Messiah, God made man, and the Holy Spirit, the divine feminine.

I am not convinced that God has gender at all, other then that the Son of Man was male in his incarnation on earth. As others point out we think and speak of the Father and Son relationship because that is what we receive from scripture, and must respect that reception. But it is scripture that teaches us that Wisdom is "her", and it is to be sought, cultivated and venerated. And while the Book of Wisdom does not use the phrase "holy spirit", many of the passages strongly suggest it:

"Wisdom is a spirit, a friend to man, though she will not pardon the words of a blasphemer" Wis 1:6

Interestingly, Wisdon is female, a spirit and has the power to forgive sin.

"Wisdom is bright and does not grow dim. By those who love her she is readily seen, and found by those who look for her" Wis 6:12-13

"And so I prayed, and understanding was given me; I entreated, and the spirit of Wisdom came to me;" Wis 7:7-8

Sounding a lot like the holy spirit to me....

"For within her is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, active, incisive, unsullied, lucid, invulnerable, benovolent, sharp, irresistable, beneficent, loving to man, steadfast, dependable, unperturbed, almighty, all-surveying, penetrating all intelligent, pure and most subtle spirits; for Wisdom is quicker to move than any motion; she is so pure, she pervades and permeates all things. She is the breath and power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty." Wis 7:22-26

All mighty, all surverying, pervaides and permiates all things, the breath and power of God...if Wisdom, the feminie Sophia isn't the Holy Spirit then apparently we need a Quadity rather than a trintiy.

So, why can't we celebrate the feminine divinity of the Holy Spirit in our liturgy? It would be good that women are affirmed, and better that men are remineded that women are every bit as much the Children of God as men are.

It is my hope that our communions will be able to drop the affinity for pagen and new age affirmations, but keep the growing interest in the divine feminine, and the affirmation of Wisdom as an essential part of our understanding God.

Father Rick

9th November 2004, 02:46 PM

To this question of whether God is masculine or feminine... my answer is 'yes'.

God said,"let us make man in our image... male and female He created them." We see elements of both masculine and feminine in nature of God.

In both scripture and tradition, however, God was always referred to in the masculine. Since this is the historic teaching of the church, I hold that it is the proper method of referring to God.

PaladinValer

9th November 2004, 04:33 PM

That isn't what Inside Spirit was saying at all. He's saying, as I have, that you are using the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Inside Edge

9th November 2004, 04:42 PM

That isn't what Inside Edge was saying at all. He's saying, as I have, that you are using the logical fallacy of equivocation. :thumbsup:

ahab

10th November 2004, 06:23 AM

You see the original point would be that is there such a thing as a women’s Eucharist anyway? Are we neither male nor female but all one in Christ Jesus? So what hope is there for communion together one might ask? However it contains a reference to “Mother God” that is complete rubbish to most Anglican’s let alone Christians.
However, about the divorce liturgy, my point is crucial. “Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the separation of this man and this woman who have been bonded in the covenant of marriage.”
Now my point is that if the teaching is so bad in areas of the church then it is hardly surprising that strange things of a different gospel are proposed, but one can hardly blame them when leaders are doing the same, ie from a bishop.
My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to "honor [each other] in the Name of God," made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows......”

Its no good ignoring these things or complaining when they are challenged, they will be challenged and rejected as a different gospel other than the one given us, according to the gospel given us.

Polycarp1

10th November 2004, 11:56 AM

Okay, I'm going to stretch confidentiality a little. The original liturgy was written specifically for use at a Eucharist conducted at a retreat for abused women attempting to recover from abusive husbands, where the masculine imagery of the normal language would have been not respectful and comforting but having the effect of distancing the participants from God. It did have a tinge of Celtic pre-Christian thought, owing to the academic studies of the writers, but was not intended to violate the canons.

Cjwinnit

10th November 2004, 12:06 PM

Interesting, thanks Polycarp1 :)

ahab

10th November 2004, 12:14 PM

Thats strange as I can't compare my wonderful earthly father with my Heavenly Father, they just aren't comparable. There are indeed some similarities, but my Heavenly Father made us both and everyone else and the universe etc.
Referring to Mother god won't reveal the Heavenly Father either.
The Kingdom of the world is not like the Kingdom of Heaven, when I look at this litergy I wonder how people are going to discover the Father their father obviously never knew.

But what about the divorce litergy, clearly its a major problem even with the leadership.

Crazy Liz

10th November 2004, 03:10 PM

But what about the divorce litergy, clearly its a major problem even with the leadership.

I'm not Anglican, but I hope this "fellowship post" might provide a little food for thought. I have often thought a divorce liturgy was needed as a way for the community of faith to acknowledge its own responsibility for a marriage that failed.

Not that the church is 100% responsible, but it shares responsibility. The refusal of churches to acknowledge this is a major contributing factor to the high divorce rate among Christians.

matthew 23:1-4

This type of liturgy should acknowledge the sin of those who failed to lift a finger. I don't know whether it does, but it should. If it did, I would think it would be hard to argue against it. The question would be, though, whether any church would be brave enough to use such a liturgy.

PaladinValer

10th November 2004, 05:52 PM

My God is my Father in the sense of God's relationship with me and with the Son. God is also my "Mother" in the sense of God's love, care, support, healing, and peacibleness that he gives/bestows unto me.

I can, logically (therefore, Reasonably), see God as both. Why? God is neither male or female. This is a fact. God had been preceived as with both feminine and masculine traits equally. This is a fact. God is Divine. This is a fact.

We have a God without gender
We have a God who is both masculine and feminine all at the same time
We have a God who is the One-and-Only True, Divine God.

If any part of God is suddenly no longer Divine (say, the feminine, in this case), then what do we have?

1. G -> (M^F)...(Premise)...Means: If God, then Masculine and Feminine
2. G -> D...(Premise)...Means: If God, then Divine
3. D -> (M^~F)...(Premise)...Means: If Divine, then (Masculine and not Feminine)
4. G -> (M^~F)...2,3 Trans...Means: By premises 2 and 3, If God, then (Masculine and not Feminine), by the rule of Transitivity
---------
5. Unsound by 1, 4

Oops! Now we have a contradiction of 1! Which means this argument is illogical. Let's try it without any one side being suddenly non-Divine

1. G -> (M^F) (Premise)
2. G -> D (Premise)
3. D -> (M^F) (Premise)
4. G -> (M^F)...2,3 Trans...Means: By premises 2 and 3, If God, then (Masculine and Feminine), by the rule of Transitivity
------
5. Tautology by 1, 4.

Now this latter one makes logical sense.

Inside Edge

10th November 2004, 09:32 PM

when I look at this litergy I wonder how people are going to discover the Father their father obviously never knew.
Maybe they'll discover the Heavenly Mother that you never knew.

ahab

11th November 2004, 05:54 AM

Hi Crazy Liz,

This type of liturgy should acknowledge the sin of those who failed to lift a finger. I don't know whether it does, but it should. If it did, I would think it would be hard to argue against it. The question would be, though, whether any church would be brave enough to use such a liturgy.

Surely in Christ Jesus we have received our forgiveness already. If we divorce we have failed but we can receive the forgiveness Jesus won for us on the cross and carry on to grow more and more in Christ. We don’t need some liturgy written by man to pretend we can excuse ourselves. I see no scriptural evidence for the proposed divorce liturgy and I am not quite sure why you seem to be blaming the church.

ahab

11th November 2004, 05:55 AM

Hi PaladinValer,

My God is my Father in the sense of God's relationship with me and with the Son. God is also my "Mother" in the sense of God's love, care, support, healing, and peacibleness that he gives/bestows unto me. My God is my Father in the sense of the relationship I have with Him as a Son and through Jesus. He is also my Father in the sense of His love. In Jesus I am healed by His stripes and His peace. My life is peace joy and righteouness in the Holy Spirit.

ahab

11th November 2004, 06:04 AM

Hi Inside_Edge,

Maybe they'll discover the Heavenly Mother that you never knew. Maybe, but that kind of depends whether one believes in Jesus or not. When I look for references to mother in the New Testament I find Jesus speaks .
“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:50

"My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." Luke 8:21

And from the angel of Jesus to John in Revelation 17:5
Of course it might also be “mystery babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth.”:)

PaladinValer

11th November 2004, 08:48 AM

Ahab, funny how you dodge the logic. Would you care to prove it wrong, because it does show otherwise.

And do NOT infer THAT to anyone again.

ahab

11th November 2004, 10:59 AM

Hi PaladinValer,

Faith isn’t necessarily logic so I gave you my revelation of God’s word. Rather than dodge any logic…

My God is my Father in the sense of the relationship I have with Him as a Son and through Jesus. He is also my Father in the sense of His love. In Jesus I am healed by His stripes and His peace. My life is peace joy and righteouness in the Holy Spirit.

Any problems with that

And do NOT infer THAT to anyone again. Sorry, Infer what?

ps139

11th November 2004, 11:47 AM

MOD HAT ON

Guys, if you really want to fight, please take it to PM. Not here.

MOD HAT OFF

Crazy Liz

11th November 2004, 01:18 PM

Hi Crazy Liz,

Surely in Christ Jesus we have received our forgiveness already. If we divorce we have failed but we can receive the forgiveness Jesus won for us on the cross and carry on to grow more and more in Christ. We don’t need some liturgy written by man to pretend we can excuse ourselves. I see no scriptural evidence for the proposed divorce liturgy and I am not quite sure why you seem to be blaming the church.

I have good reasons, but since I'm not Anglican and you have responded as you have, I can't explain here.

ahab

11th November 2004, 02:20 PM

ahab

11th November 2004, 02:31 PM

May I clarify,

There seems to be problem with the scripture I referred to.

As far as I can see there is no scriptural evidence to support ‘mother god’
However when Jesus refers to His Father in Heaven its always His Father. When He tells us to pray its always to our Father in Heaven.
So I have included some scripture to support my debating position

When Jesus talks of mother ....
"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:50
and the angel of Jesus says
Of course it might also be "mystery babylon the great the mother of prostitutes and of the abominations of the earth." Revelation 17:5

Crazy Liz

11th November 2004, 03:30 PM

Hi Crazy Liz,

I appreciate it is difficult for you to respond because of the rules on being an Anglican but in response to my post you say you have your reasons. You have your reasons for what?
:scratch:
That we need a liturgy for divorce because in Christ Jesus we havent received our forgiveness already? For a need to divorce ourselves, have you any scriptural evidence?
:)

Thank you. Now that you have phrased it that way, I think I can safely answer a question without entering into a debate.

I am convinced that the growing divorce rate among Christians partly has to do with the breakdown of community, so that there is no longer a proper balance between individual and group responsibility. The conservatives argue that everyone's welfare is their own individual responsibility, while the liberals tend to push responsibility to higher levels and more formal structures. I think what the NT teaches is smaller, more intimate churches where people "bear one another's burdens."

I am not at all saying the couple does not bear responsibility for the failure of their marriage or that God does not forgive. I am saying that too many marriages have fallen apart that could have been saved if the church had really done everything possible. The churches are just paralyzed. We either don't care enough, or don't know what to do, or are afraid to get involved. I think that when a marriage fails, the guilt stigma (if any) attaches only to the couple, and not to the church that perhaps could have helped them but didn't try, or perhaps tried, but failed.

I'm certainly not trying to EXCUSE failure and sin. Far from it. I am suggesting that all who had a part in the failure have some responsibility for the sin, and should acknowledge it, confess it, and receive forgiveness. Not acknowledging it in any kind of liturgy indicates excuse or denial. Acknowledging it indicates responsibility, forgiveness, and renewal of obedience.

Is it necessary that this be done in public or in a formal liturgy? No. But the solidarity of a liturgy does have healing power. When the priest pronounces forgiveness after the prayers of confession in the formal Anglican liturgy, this has value. It does not say "that we haven't received forgiveness already," but it has been preserved as a part of Christian liturgies from early times. It acknowledges collective, as well as individual sin, and God's forgiveness for it.

These are the reasons I think a divorce liturgy would be appropriate, although I hope, rarely used. I do not know whether the particular one under discussion is designed with these purposes in mind. If not, I would probably argue against its form, but not its entire existence.

Inside Edge

11th November 2004, 08:41 PM

I think that when a marriage fails, the guilt stigma (if any) attaches only to the couple, and not to the church that perhaps could have helped them but didn't try, or perhaps tried, but failed.
Very wise, Liz. And I agree wholeheartedly. Your whole post - not just that quote. You would make a great Anglican (in my opnion)!

I believe Paul spoke directly to this issue: when one part of the body hurts, does the rest of it feel nothing? Beyond that, more than just "feeling" it, I think the remainder of the body ought to take a little more care in healing the part that's hurting. Then, responsibility and/or blame as to the cause of the problem would be a moot point.

Inside Edge

11th November 2004, 08:48 PM

ahab,

I don't see any new or compelling information in your most recent post, so all I can do at this point is re-phrase what I've already said to the discussion of God's "gender" and how we relate to him.

I believe God has no gender. I also believe that we, and every person in the Bible who refers to God, refers to him in the masculine because it was culturally acceptable and convenient to do so. To quote a site I read recently - "God is no more a 'He' than a table is." As such, I feel the perception and relation to God as masculine is largely, if not entirely, due to our own cultural and traditional limitations. I see absolutely no reasoning or evidence that a person can not know God or experience God by addressing God as a divine, Holy, heavenly "Mother."

ahab

12th November 2004, 05:39 AM

Hi Crazy Liz,

The problem is that a failed marriage is a failure to God’s will and purpose, as described through scripture and particularly Jesus. People can receive the forgiveness in Christ Jesus and re-focus on Christ Jesus. One can make a public confession if one wants, but a liturgy ‘to bless’ a separation is not scriptural and a completly useless conceptand probably an offence to God. The scriptures reveal that is not God’s purpose. It makes people think that God is blessing them for something when He clearly isn’t.

The bigger problem is not that some lay people in the church are confused, but that some leaders are!

My wife and I, in order to KEEP our wedding vow to "honor [each other] in the Name of God," made the decision to let each other go. We returned to church, where our marriage had begun, and in the context of the eucharist, released each other from our wedding vows......”

That is clearly to the vast majority of Anglicans let alone Christians, complete nonsense.

ahab

12th November 2004, 05:43 AM

Hi Inside Edge,

I haven’t given any new or compelling information as I don’t need any.

If God is no more He than a table is you could call Him a table if you wish. However, I know God through Jesus and address Him as Jesus did and as Jesus told me too. I have to say that I am not sure I know your ‘mother god’:)

PaladinValer

12th November 2004, 03:27 PM

Ahab,

1. You do need proof, as I gave mine. The Triad goes Scripture, Tradition, Reason. All equal in the Anglican Church; there is no "better leg." That is what Anglicanism holds to.
2. Making ad hom attacks like you do is truly not welcome and very crude.

ahab

13th November 2004, 11:10 AM

PaladinValer,

What proof? I gave my reasoning and evidence of scripture, you don’t seem to have read or responded to it, nor do you have appeared to have given any scripture.
As to Scripture tradition and reason, I have given the scripture for Father God, It is traditional, and I have given my reasoning. 2. Making ad hom attacks like you do is truly not welcome and very crude.Once again, if you have problems with my posts, as I have noticed you have made similar comments to others, I can only apologise to you, I do not wish to offend anyone personally, but please take it to the moderators.

Peace to you

Polycarp1

13th November 2004, 12:13 PM

Ahab: You win. Congratulations.

Attention: fellow Anglicans -- it is no longer possible to be a person who lives out the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church, and consider oneself an Anglican Christian, on this forum.

You will kindly make your own moral decisions as to how to deal with this issue.

May the peace of Christ be with you all.

Ite, missa est.

ahab

13th November 2004, 03:26 PM

Hi Polycarp1

It isn’t a case of winning, but seemingly an frequent stream of major differences in theology. Attention: fellow Anglicans -- it is no longer possible to be a person who lives out the Baptismal Covenant of the Episcopal Church, and consider oneself an Anglican Christian, on this forum.In response to this, can I confirm that this is an Anglican Communion forum section and not purely an ECUSA area? It may be worthwhile considering how many African or Southern Cone Anglicans there are posting here and that I am a fellow Anglican too. Christianity Today and the Church of England Newspaper have exposed what many consider a different gospel.

PaladinValer

14th November 2004, 04:58 AM

I see TomUK is a member of the Church of England (and also a conservative Anglican to boot!) yet strongly disagreed with CT's article (and, so it implies, his own CoE's article too).

I see some members of the Anglican Church in Canada who also notice CT's falsehoods.

I, quite frankly, see not just liberals or moderates but also conservatives (yes, CONSERVATIVES) from all over the Anglican Communion who disagreed with CT's falsehood-filled article.

It doesn't seem to bother us. And, quite frankly, the whole problem's been solved. We got the jist of what the ritual was trying to tell us. We recognized that it was never an official liturgy, rite, ritual, or anything other "official" of the ECUSA. I guess I don't see why you think, as CT does, that it is.

Well, it isn't and wasn't and never will, and that's a fact. And I for one do not appreciate anyone, especially a fellow Anglican, spreading lies about my province of OUR CHURCH. Not just your Church; our Church. And I do believe that an element of respect regardless of how strongly you feel of any issue would be appreciated, especially when we have members from liberal to conservative pleading for such respect.

And I believe I can say with reasonable certainty that most of us are tired of this whole shabang of a topic, especially since the problem has been solved. So if a moderator is reading this, for the love of all that is Merciful, please close this thread. The ECUSA's "problem" with this unofficual ritual was solved days ago now, so too is the overdue time this can be put to rest and it has caused this forum enough grief, anger, and agony.