Michael Hampson ViaMedia.News Common Worship and our Gender-neutral God
Martyn Percy Surviving Church The Church of England in Secular Cycles: A Case of Corporate Long-Covid?
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Rumours of angels and reports of abuse
Andrew Brown The slow deep hover Here Eye goes again
Charlie Bell ViaMedia.News Consensus, Compassion, Truth, and Grace
I do wonder at the time and energy devoted to matters of little consequence like what to do about God’s preferred He/Him pronouns.
Particularly when we see statistics which suggest that churchgoing in the UK is increasing amongst younger generations and particularly younger men according to new research from the Bible Society.
People need us to show them Christ and the truth of the gospel, not to have us tinker with texts in a misguided pursuit of relevance, or to suit an aversion to male pronouns.
Again, challenging the Scriptures with culture rather than challenging culture with Scripture.
And throw in this from the liberal side, reality check, Martyn Percy’s essay:
“Today there are 12,500 parishes in the CofE serving a population of 57 million. Under 700,000 attend its services, amounting to just over 1% of the population. With 36% of attendees over the age of 70, the cliff edge looks very steep, with 200,000 set to be lost to the CofE in the next 15 years. They will not be replaced.”
Pronouns for God, with 36% of attendees over 70, and the CofE facing extinction.
Can we be a little less provincial? Yes the C of E stats are catastrophic, but so are those for the Catholic Church in France, the churches in Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, etc. Undoubtedly we could do better – not least by prioritising front line ministry rather than bureaucratic structures. But it is surely important to recognise that rapid decline is not peculiar to English Anglicans but a widespread phenomenon across Europe and much of anglophone culture. Surely the invitation is to recognise that – to quote Professor Chris Beeley – the changes ahead are far greater than anything that happened… Read more »
Yes! This obsession with numbers is going nowhere and generating “clouds of unknowing”. Deck chairs on the Titanic. And who decided that God was focussed on “bums on seats”? Let alone bums on which seats.
Obsession with numbers? Is that all the concern amounts to? I should have thought it entailed viability per se. The capacity to be the Church of England into the future.
Or which bums on which seats
Martyn Percy is a recognized figure in the CofE. This is a site about the CofE. Are you saying that focusing on pronouns for God is an “embrace of a God-given opportunity?” I fail to see the obvious death spiral of the CofE, statistically, as on analogy with struggles elsewhere of nowhere near the urgency and magnitude. Chris Beeley’s church in Dallas–from which he has sadly departed–is an example of robust health, nurtured over many generations. The Diocese of Dallas is a creative, missional, well-led example that does not chart with your “we are all going down hill” notion. If… Read more »
Re Catholic Church in France. Le nombre de baptêmes catholiques d’adultes en France ne cesse de progresser. En deux ans, il a même doublé. Selon les chiffres de la conférence des évêques publiés le 10 avril, il y aura 10 384 baptêmes d’adultes lors de la nuit de Pâques du 19 au 20 avril prochain. Ils étaient 5 423 en 2023, 7135 en 2024. Aux chiffres de cette année s’ajoutent les baptêmes d’adolescents (entre 12 et 18 ans) qui connaissent, eux aussi, une progression spectaculaire : ils étaient 2953 en 2023, ils seront 7 404 en 2025. En tout, 17 788… Read more »
I remember a Belgian bishop some 30 years ago looking at an upsurge in religious adherence in his diocese – and worrying. His concern was that the embracing of a religious identity might be linked to an upsurge in Flemish nationalism and that it was ‘identity’ conversion, a cultural phenomenon. Given some of the cultural tensions across the west at the moment, I wonder whether any work’s been done on the French renewal experience in this regard?
The seductive ‘little consequence’ fallacy raises its head once again! Sadly I suspect this pernicious fallacy lies right at the very heart of the crisis the CofE is in right now, with a huge variety of self styled gatekeepers of the ‘bigger picture’ deciding all sorts of inconvenient things (like effective reporting of abuse or listening to survivors and taking them seriously) were of little consequence…’Little consequences become big consequences and big consequences kill’ to paraphrase a chilling aphorism from my distant evangelical upbringing.
That is a comment that could only be offered by someone who hasn’t studied a biblical language.
The words we use do matter, and the words we use for God matter immensely. Personally I’m a fan of the American theologian William Stringfellow’s approach to reading the Bible. He noted that most people read the Bible Americanly, and sought to read America Biblically.
If we genuinely want to show people the truth of Christ and the gospel we need to use far more than words.
I don’t think God has preferred pronouns. God is beyond pronouns. The question is what pronouns we as mere humans choose to project onto our God. Paying attention to the pronouns we use about God tells us about our own attitude to gender, and not about God’s gender. The choices we make often depends on the culture we live in. A few thousand years ago, before patriarchy came into the world, Mesopotamian culture contained strong independent woman, and so they told stories of the goddess Inana, who was proudly independent both personally and sexually. Inana had a male consort Dumuzi.… Read more »
We don’t need to correct the terms by which God reveals Himself to us in Scripture. I suspect the people coming to the churches mentioned by the Bible Society want to hear about Christianity and who God is as revealed in Scripture rather than being apologetic about it. The Bible Society’s report notes that although churchgoing has increased by 50% from 2018 to 2024, it notes that the share of those attending Anglican churches has decreased from 41% to 34%. Among 18 to 34 year olds this is now 20% from 30% in 2018. Catholicism and Pentecostalism are up. In… Read more »
“The Bible Society’s report notes that although churchgoing has increased by 50% from 2018 to 2024, it notes that the share of those attending Anglican churches has decreased from 41% to 34%” Doing some quick back of the envelope maths, this means attendance at Anglican churches has actually increased (34% of a pot increased by 50% is more that 41% of the original pot). Sounds like a win for Anglicanism to me. There is no evidence that the factors you ascribe the growth of certain brands of Christianity to (e.g. conservative biblicism) are actually the causes of that growth rather… Read more »
‘A healthy view of masculinity in scripture’. Phew. How about this – ‘When it comes to chauvinism, to the procuring of women for sexual purposes, to unbridled male power and to biased reporting of events in favour of men, the Bible is a good a source as any’ (John Bell). I suggest the reason you are so comfortable with the traditional text as the revelation of a male God to men, through men, is that you are a man. Half the world is not. Are they not in God’s image? Does God not have anything to say to them? Neither… Read more »
I don’t think God is male or female but God is revealed in Scripture in predominately male pronouns and in predominately male imagery, for example God is our Father. I don’t think that’s perverse or needs fixing in any way. The only reason why that would need fixing is if we’ve decided that any use of masculine pronouns or language is inherently negative. I don’t share that view and I don’t share the view that the Bible offers us a chauvinistic view of the world irrespective of what John Bell tells us. I also suspect that men are looking for… Read more »
A number of languages do not include gender or gendered pronouns. In my understanding, these include Armenian, Georgian, Persian, Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Turkish, Tagalog, Swahili, Mandarin and Cantonese.
Surely you are not suggesting that Biblical translations using those languages are “perverse” (or perhaps heretical) because they do not, and cannot, use masculine pronouns for God.
In Finnish the words for man and woman are different. The words for father and mother are different too, as are the words for son and daughter.
So a Finnish translation of the gospels would line up with the gospels in Greek, Latin and English by saying that God’s son taught his disciples to pray to God as ‘Our father’.
The discussion on this thread involves gendered pronouns. It does not involve nouns indicating biological sex. There’s quite a difference.
All nouns referring to God are to some extent metaphorical. Referring to God the Father as “Father” does not mean that God the Father has a penis any more than Jesus, God the Son, likening to himself as a “hen” (Matthew 23.37; Luke 13.34) means that Jesus had a uterus.
I don’t get your point. As you say, Jesus was probably not describing God’s biological sex when he referred to him as ‘father’…
So why then do you claim that Jesus calling God ‘father’ is irrelevant to the thread because he’s using a noun that describes biological sex?
Gareth, nobody is saying that “any use of masculine pronouns or language is inherently negative”. If you wish to use male pronouns in your worship and prayer then you have my full support. Where I disagree with you is your belief that ONLY male pronouns can or should be used. If other people find a mix of gender imagery about God in scripture, and find it to be helpful in their own worship and prayer then why is that a problem to? They are not forcing anything onto you. You talked earlier about “healthy masculinity”. To me a healthy masculinity… Read more »
Well said, Simon.
‘The only reason why that would need fixing is if we’ve decided that any use of masculine pronouns or language is inherently negative.’ The use of predominantly masculine pronouns for God has a negative effect on many women, including me. We, like men, would like to have a positive model of our own sex affirmed in scripture. And a large percentage of us, including myself, have been sexually abused by male authority figures. It can be a pastoral necessity to use neutral or feminine gender of God at times. Can you understand that? God’s revelation of himself in the Bible… Read more »
This is HOLY WEEK for crying out loud. Men are inherently terrible: they crucified the Son of God!
…notwithstanding the question of whether women are just as bad.
Would your comment be (slightly) improved if you said “I am terrible, I crucified the Son of God!’
(How this might be a contribution to pronouns for God is aother question).
How about the not-so-royal “We”?
God revealed in scripture that both men and women are made in God’s image. How could that be, if God were not feminine as well as masculine?
The diverse terms for God in scripture (Adonai, Ruach, Pneuma, etc.) are also diverse in their own gender (male, female and neuter respectively for the terms already mentioned). The ancient people whose grasping after the mystery of God lead to scripture were not seeking to pin God down wholly to binary human categories.
I find this study unbelievable! All the data I have seen indicate that 18-24 year olds in church are as rare as snow in the Sahara. Which churches are they attending and why is this not shown in any other data?
I think Gareth may be partly right about young men in particular coming into the church, but that may not be a good thing in my opinion.
Pope Francis has commented (with disquiet) on the many young men coming into the RC church in the US as ordinands who have a pretty reactionary and unhealthy attitude to gender, but who finds parts of the RC church to be a safe place for them to live this out.
This may be a long term trend. 30 years ago a RC friend remarked on the growing number of RC ordinands and young priests who were very conservative and followed the example of John-Paul 2 and were reacting against Vatican 2. She claimed they were especially negative in their attitude towards women.
I suspect it depends where you look. My parish has seen a modest growth in the number of worshippers in that age range, many of them students from India. Elsewhere in Coventry there is an increasing number of Pentecostal churches established by African pastors that are well attended by people in their 20s.
Looking at full report some growth figures are truly astounding. It would be interesting to see some genuine critical analysis.
In many growing churches, that age group is growing because it is acting as a dating pool. Nothing wrong with that. Put on your Sunday best!
Hang on a minute there – Ashera was the consort of Baal, not Yahweh. Those Jewish reformers and prophets who held to the Torah – the Lord your God is one God, and you shall have no others before me – tore down the Ashera poles etc.
Yahweh and Baal were not the same – and never could be
This is, I am afraid, ill informed.
We do not reflect the Bible very faithfully and consequently present a less than Biblical vision of God.
‘challenging the Scriptures with culture rather than challenging culture with Scripture’ – er, no actually the scriptures here challenge our worship practices and society around us often gets it more right.
There is, I believe, a helpful Grove Booklet recently published on this but I can’t be bothered to post a link to it.
So have you actually read the Grove Booklet? And if not, how do you know it’s helpful?
Charles is being modest! He has recently published ‘Language, Gender, and God’ in the Grove Worship series. It is excellent and very relevant to this discussion. Here is the publisher’s blurb: “Language about God that we find in scripture and liturgy is inevitable gendered, since in English we do not have personal, gender-neutral personal pronouns. The use of solely masculine language for God can have unforeseen pastoral consequences.This insightful study explores the issues, starting with the range of biblical images for God, reflects on the language we use, and sets out some creative possibilities for making our imagery and language… Read more »
Thank you David, you are my vicar here on earth, er TA
Nicely put, David.
Out of interest, was the publisher’s blurb written by Charles?
Martyn Percy is right on the money. What is called for is a lot more hard thinking about where we are and how and why we got there – I see precious little of that from the leadership. Boosterish tours by the ABY teaching the Lord’s Prayer is a waste of his time – just tell the clergy to learn it themselves and then pass it on – they all say it when they say their offices, don’t they? (lol) We need him to be leading a different kind of campaign. Every single thing tried in the last sixty-five years… Read more »
The Alpha course says it, which is why it has been so successful over 45 years. Its only target is family, friends and neighbours and those with questions. The root of the Anglican Church is justification by faith in Jesus, So lifting Jesus higher is a good place to start, followed by baptism in the Spirit, which is why Pentecostalism is growing so fast.
Ressourcement is certainly alive and well in Chemin Neuf in France and resonates with the spiritual hunger of the generation under 35. When I listen to much at TA — right gender pronouns — I feel I am listening to baby boomers and their concerns. I thought I would take a look at the Hallow app (you see ads on the US TV), as I have an interest and investment in Ignatian exercises. The priest doing this work at Hallow is outstanding. Experienced, wise, kind. You enter a different world and one that the young Christians I meet yearn to… Read more »
I was put off by Hallow charging
I tend to agree.
The problem with the Lord’s Prayer is not that it needs teaching or education, it needs enacting.
Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.
Give us our daily bread.
Are these activities visible and obvious at all levels in the church? The first line is very radical and you see many in the church who rail against it.
One possible hypothesis is that the church is largely shrinking down to those who have had a personal experience of God. I have written before that I see clericalism as a problem. The more direct the relationship between an individual and God, the more likely the individual will have an active spiritual life.
And does that relationship need to be with a God for whom the use of pronouns – of any gender – is appropriate? We do not, on the whole, go along with much of Genesis. Why are we so wedded to mankind being “in the image of God”? And if we are clinging to that, at what point in our millions of years of evolution did we become more like God than any of the other creatures evolving alongside us?
“We do not, on the whole, go along with much of Genesis.”
I just love this kind of comment.
If we love and respect God, surely we will use the pronouns for which He has expressed a preference? The Bible is clear, even in the reported worlds of Jesus, that is male.
Can a mouse have an encounter with God? Or a snail? Or an eagle? We think not. Isn’t the fact that we can (at least part of) what being made in the image of God means?
As to when, I am pretty much a Creationist so I don’t think you and I are likely to have a meaningful debate on the “when”.
Just to clarify. I suspect you are sympathetic. Who is this self-evident ‘We’ of global Christianity in total. ‘Much of’ well, how much of, where, and why here and not there? ‘You meant for evil, but God meant it for good’ or the biggest part of the book of Genesis concerning God’s care of Joseph in Egypt? Or, the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacoob before that? Or the wisdom imbedded in the Tower of Babel? The geiger-counter that hovers over ‘much of Genesis’ is a device made up to pick and choose like our favorite tea at Sainsbury’s. Palm… Read more »
God hasn’t expressed a preference for any pronouns – unless you think God invented all languages? God reveals himself – and sometimes herself – in languages invented by people. And those recording this revelation used language, including pronouns, which seemed appropriate within their culture at the time; often their culture was patriarchal and the language they used echoed patriarchal assumptions. Our language, English, has changed within my lifetime. Masculine pronouns are no longer assumed to include the female sex. So, if we want to express the undoubted truth that God has no sex, we will use neuter pronouns (if available),… Read more »
Jesus taught us to use male references. God’s preference, from His own mouth, is very clear and, out of respect, we should follow it.
But in the Old Testament the Spirit is sometimes referred to as female, and feminine imagery is sometimes used of God. E.g. the Spirit in Genesis ‘brooding’ (mother bird image) over the face of the waters; Jesus comparing himself to a hen; the reference in Isaiah (I think) to God as a mother eagle stirring up her nest. Jesus also compared himself, in parables, to a woman making a batch of dough and a woman sweeping her home. And there is the extended imagery in Rom 8 of the Spirit in labour and giving birth. I have the text of… Read more »
Are you referring to “Abba”? Like Dada, Papa, AND Mama, those just begin as baby babbling sounds—which the proud adults thereabouts then project as gendered names for parents.
So also those who project gender on any usage of “Abba” by Jesus!
“Are you referring to “Abba”? Like Dada, Papa, AND Mama”
Is factually, linguistically nonsense.
The Priest Hath Corrected Me! /s
I have one problem with this issue, even though I’m generally in agreement with it. My relationship with God, the divine or whatever title we employ, is the most personal relationship which I have – deeper even than that with my wife. When I’m writing, trying to put my thoughts down here, or anywhere else, its hard to describe that divine-wards relationship without using human pronouns of some sort. Given the limitations of both mind and language which we have to cope with, that’s inevitable. ‘You’ and ‘your’ are probably the only words of address which don’t have some form… Read more »
Lord Lieutenants and Lord Mayors are “Lord” whether they are male or female. So perhaps we shouldn’t worry about “Lord God” either.
Interesting point, Simon – Lieutenant is one of those words which in practice can be applied to either a woman or a man; Mayor is one in which, for whatever reason, we’ve chosen to use a traditionally male term for both sexes. ‘Actor’, I think is another, as it now seems is ‘Lord’.
Personally I always thought that that practise was unconsciously disrespectful to women – implying that a woman can only have a role like that if she colludes with patriarchy and acts like one of the boys.
What’s wrong with Lady Mayoress?, or the head of an Oxford College being “Mistress” not “Master”?
Presumably because a mayoress is the wife of a mayor, without any mayoral authority in her own right. Those of major cities could be styled Lady Mayor, it is true, just as the Crown’s lieutenants could be Lady Lieutenant. But they aren’t.
Fair point about mayor(esses) – but why the other role labels are gendered male is the interesting question. What is the resistance? Is it the same as the resistance to labels about God debated here?
Presumably because there was a time when it was felt that only men could hold these roles. Using the same title for women implies they are filling exactly the same role. Consider, for example, the word “priest”. We do not refer to women clergy as “priestesses” — or rather, those who do are deliberately casting aspersions on them.
Agreed about priest, and I accept this is a nuanced debate. But a priest as actor is a gender neutral term and can be used about both genders.
Lord or Master are not gender neutral terms, and to me the use of Lord or Master about a role filled by a woman is still problematic. By continuing to use Lord or Master we are displaying an unconscious discomfort with the fact that women are filling these traditionally male roles?
Should we insist that a man in charge of a hospital ward should called Matron and not Charge Nurse?
Priest and actor are only gender-neutral (or sex-neutral) because we have decided that they are. Female actors were always called actresses, and they still are in many places, not least at the Academy Awards. And we redefined the word priest to be gender-neutral. In ancient Greece and Rome, and elsewhere there were priests (male) and priestesses (female). I suspect that at least part of the problem for “master” is that the feminine form has other unwelcome connotations. But this is language. It’s messy and it changes and there is no stopping that. Clearly English has changed in this regard. For… Read more »
But in the OT ‘the LORD’ is a substitution for the gender-neutral YWHW, the tetragrammaton which was considered too sacred to be written down or uttered. This becomes clearer if you read the Jerusalem Bible.
Yes, indeed it is (which is why I put it in caps, this system not easily allowing small caps!). To be more precise LORD is a translation of the Hebrew Adonai אֲדֹנָי, and capitalized to show that although a translation of that word it represents a different word in the Hebrew text, i.e. the tetragrammaton. I don’t think the tetragrammaton was too sacred to be written, only to be too sacred to speak — after all it is written throughout the Hebrew bible, from Genesis through to the psalms and the prophets. (Later reluctance to even write it is presumably… Read more »
But it remains true that the masculine LORD was substituted for the biblical gender-neutral YHWH. Terms like ‘Creator’ or ‘the Divine’, or indeed ‘God’, escape the gender trap.
What gender, if any, does presbyteros have? I think the old English word ‘prester’, which mutated into ‘priest’, has no gender?
I suppose “creator” is gender-neutral in modern English, but historically it was masculine, and the feminine might be creatrix perhaps? Parallel feminine forms such as executrix and even perhaps directrix as well as others have only recently fallen into desuetude. Even English words like “redeemer” can have a Latin-derived feminine form, in this case redemptrix.
Presbyter in Latin is, I think, a masculine noun, deriving of course from Greek πρεσβύτερος meaning an old man. 1 Timothy 5.2 contains a feminine form, presbyteras.
Thanks, that’s interesting. But in the NT presbyteros surely has a special meaning as church leader, aka overseer?
I think ‘executrix’ persisted in legal contexts long after it fell into disuse elsewhere. I’ve never run across ‘directrix’.
The OED gives examples of directrix in this sense up to 1892, and notes that it is equivalent to “directress”. There is another usage of the word with reference to an aspect of conic sections in geometry. As for presbyteros, I can’t write with any authority. Certainly the word comes to mean a church “leader”, an elder, but whether it is always used in that sense, or whether it sometimes just means an older man, I can only speculate. And whether the feminine form just means an older women or might also mean a female leader is definitely above my… Read more »
I wasn’t around in 1892 – perhaps that’s why I haven’t run across ‘directrix’ before!
Acts tells us that Paul appointed elders in every church he founded. Clearly the term is being used in a different sense to that of merely an older person.
Whatever the situation might be in popular opinion, a bang up to date High Court judgment (9 February 2024) sticks to the original – and correct! – usage of ‘executrix’.
Paragraph 105 of the judgment in Lane v Lane [2024] EWHC 275 (Ch) refers specifically (on the facts of that case) to “the replacement of the executrix”.
The use of “actor” for both male and female thespians is because most of the organizations for that profession no longer make the distinction.
John, Your reply to my post about Asherah is elsewhere on this thread, but I will post my response here. The basic issue is this, the archaeological evidence from the Holy Land is very often in total conflict with the “history” told in the Hebrew Scriptures. And how do we make sense of this? For much of the church this archaeological evidence is so challenging that they ignore it and take the Hebrew scriptures as being essentially historically true. For others, including myself, I choose to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that uses the insights of archaeology. This… Read more »
This is a classic case of “there is a reality that one can propose, speculate about, use the graffiti left by the march of time to recreate” “by unbiased scholars” (who widely disagree) and this is the reality. the “Hebrew Scriptures, NT etc” are the accidental depository of said reality. Hans Frei chronicled the rise of this way of thinking in the 18th century. The irony has been pointed out that what was once condemned as the obscuring character of “allegory” is terrain now occupied by the sort of theory-ism described above. The village idiot took the clock apart to… Read more »
I am sorry if you disagree with my comments, Anglican Priest, but I can’t say I am surprised by that. I admit that the texts and sources I tend to use come from outside the Christian tradition. Mostly I use Jewish and Israeli sources as I think they have a tendency to know their own texts best. I find their work more willing to face up to these difficult problems than Christian scholarship. The main sources I used in the post above were firstly Israel Finkelstein, the late director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He wrote… Read more »
I wish TA had a like button. Thanks Simon Dawson. Academic theology when it meets archeology , science should win. I find the OT highly challenging and without being flippant more like The Goat Herders Guide to the Galaxy as far as historical record … thanks . As far as basing an ethical secular society on Biblical inerrancy based on the OT we are going back to the stone age philosophically. It’s inspiring as literature as a base for ethics not so much imho.
Thanks for the post and the support Richie, but I am not sure that I agree that science should win. Science and Theology should work in constructive symbiosis and harmony. My approach to this issue is a bit like what happened in the late 19th century. Before that the early Genesis chapters of Eden and the Flood were taken as historical reports. But then scientific research in the fossil record and evolution challenged that assumption. The church had to make the difficult adjustment to accepting that Eden and the flood were legendary stories to be found right across Mesopotamian culture.… Read more »
This sounds much like the “non-overlapping magisteria” approach advocated by the late Stephen Jay Gould, an award-winning paleontologist and writer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Thanks Pat, that’s an interesting essay, but I would have the domains as overlapping and in dialogue. The interesting bit is what happens in the middle bit of the Venn diagram.
I think science upholds the idea of a Garden of Eden sustaining life in its rich diversity until farming practices systematically destroyed it and still is. Personally I read Genesis as supporting evolution and a creator and saving God infusing the earth with the ability to create and recreate a world teaming with life in perfect balance. It would also be strange if the writers of the bible were not aware of stories found in other middle eastern cultures and legends of a great flood in particular. Civilisations in both Mesopotamia and Egypt depended on plentiful supply of water and… Read more »
Thanks for responding Adrian, I can agree with everything you say. There is some superb imagery of a saving God in the Bible, and some wonderful wisdom derived from many sources. But perhaps we can learn new ideas about how we interpret these texts In my own work I make the distinction between masculinity and patriarchy. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a strong powerful man, but a man who is comfortable working with and alongside women. This sort of culture is associated with cooperation and sharing for the good of the community. This contrasts with a patriarchy (Father… Read more »
“If we love and respect God, surely we will use the pronouns for which He has expressed a preference?”
Is this God’s preference? Or the preference of the ancient authors who put his words in human language?
You mean the God who chose to incarnate as a man?
Unless God was prepared to have his message and his messenger ignored and rejected by the patriarchal society of Bronze-Age Palestine, what other choice was there?
Look at the way his disciples treated the woman he picked to be the first witness to his resurrection.
Do you believe in the plenary or verbal inspiration of Scripture? If so that should sort this question out for you. If not you end up in a quagmire where you have no means of determining God’s words from those of human authors. Which begs the question why use the Bible at all, or why be a Christian? That seems to be the ultimate choice here. Hold to divinely revealed Scripture through the divine inspiration of authors, or determine what God is like for ourselves without recourse to Scripture. If we choose the second path that’s not Christianity. At some… Read more »
I believe the Bible is inspired by God, but is an inspiration interpreted by and through the minds of men, with all that implies–including the biases of the society and culture of those men.
Or do you believe that a loving God truly ordered all the war and genocide in the Old Testament?
It might be worth mentioning that last thought to the Israeli Supreme Court, as apparently that is what they’ve recently said. (It may not be the case – I haven’t yet seen the report on, say, the BBC.0
That’s a very good point John. But going back to the point I posted elsewhere about the tension between archaeology and the biblical narrative, then many scholars argue that this combined monarchy of Israel and Judah under King David never actually happened in history. There is little evidence supporting it. King David existed, but as the ruler of a much smaller entity. Where this leaves Israel’s argument that they should be allowed to “reclaim” to the “biblical lands” is in interesting question. The Hebrew scriptures are profound documents, full of insights and inspirations concerning how men and women relate to… Read more »
That’s a false dichotomy. For a start, what exactly do you mean by inspiration? Is it the original texts, now lost, which are inspired? Is it the later existing copies, sometimes fragmentary? If extant texts differ, how do we decide which is inspired? And do we regard our translations into our own language as inspired? For that, see the debates on literal translation vs dynamic equivalence. Then, how do we decide which interpretations of the text are more, or less, inspired? Many on TA believe the Bible to be inspired, and have seen the Spirit working through it in our… Read more »
Gareth, the interesting question here is why you feel such a strong need to control other people’s faith. Firstly you wanted to control and deny our ability to use a creative mix of language about God. And now you want to control the way we approach scripture. Anybody who has a different approach to you is to be excluded from the church. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the church, so for you to claim to decide who is or who is not Christian is quite a big reach. What is it that makes you unable to be comfortable with… Read more »
I’ve got no desire to “control” anyone’s faith. People are free to believe what they like even if it isn’t Christianity.
To be able to say that Christianity is something also requires us at some point to say that something isn’t Christianity.
The second we decide we want to invent our own image of God in non-Scriptural terms rather than listen to what God has revealed about Himself we’ve moved outside of what Christianity is.
“The second we decide we want to invent our own image of God in non-Scriptural terms rather than listen to what God has revealed about Himself we’ve moved outside of what Christianity is.”
This is incorrect.
Which language does God speak though? A lot of languages – Turkish, Persian, Urdu and Malay for example – make no distinction between masculine and feminine pronouns. I would surmise that the question of whether God is ‘he’ or ‘she’ is not significant to speakers of those languages.
If they are the most respectful pronouns for someone with an expressed male identity then there’s no problem.
The idea that God has a preference for pronouns is preposterously anthropomorphic.
Then why did Jesus not sometimes say “My Mother”?
Our Lady was a woman. That doesn’t mean God is a man. That’s just silly and a very narrow view of the Divine Creator.
He did.
No, probably not, as I believe we evolved from something single celled, over millions of years. But I don’t believe I’m the only one who can’t take seriously the notion of a God who expresses a preference about pronouns (a preference which only makes sense for those whose language uses gendered pronouns) . I tend to agree about the clericalism, though!
God told Moses how we are to name Him. Both Mary and Joseph were told what name to give Jesus. Doesn’t that suggest at least a high probability that the Lord cares also what pronouns we use if we don’t use His name?
God told Moses that his ‘name’ is YHWH – ‘I am who I am’ or ‘I will be who I will be’. That is not a male name or title.
Correct. But it shows that God does have a preference how he is referred to.
Or it shows the tradition recording what it came to understand.
If you’re thinking like an agnostic historian, yes.
And that God’s preference is gender neutral.
Those who ‘do not go along with much of Genesis’ would benefit from being attentive to Marilynne Robinson, the Pulitzer-prize winning novelist and essayist. Her Reading Genesis reveals God’s infinite patience with and loving care for the human race to be found in that book, unparalleled in other ancient (and modern?) literatures.
The stories of the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are not evidence of infinite patience.
Phrases like “our Father” and “our daily bread” and “deliver us from evil” don’t indicate a preference for a “personal” experience of God. “Lord have mercy upon us.” A priest may consecrate the Eucharist only when there are others present. The Orthodox celebrate Divine Liturgy on Sundays… when the entire community can be present.
There is one simple phrase Jesus often used. It is so simple that even if the Gospels were written years later, we probably have an accurate record of His words.
“Follow me!”
It isn’t “Follow my disciples” or “Follow my church.”. Simple and clear, but something some of those in ordained ministry seem to forget.
If there was no Church, there’d be no Jesus to follow.
That seems back to front to me.
The reason there is a church at all is because there is a Jesus to follow.
The church is the gathered people of God, who are saved by Christ and are called to follow Him.
No Jesus, no church. Not no church, no Jesus. That would only be true if Jesus wasn’t a real person in history.
If there were no Church who would be the followers of Jesus? Who would spread the Gospel? No Church. No Jesus. No “gathered people of God”. No Jesus. Real people in history can be ignored or forgotten.
Back to front again.
The church is the people who follow Jesus Christ.
The church exists because of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ doesn’t exist because of the church.
No Jesus, no church. Not no church, no Jesus.
If the Church didn’t exist Jesus would still exist. But the Bible would not, and we would have no way of knowing about Jesus.
If all churches closed there would still be the Bible. Many people have copies at home
The Bible exists because Christians – ie church people – wrote it, copied it, published it. Without the Church the Bible wouldn’t exist and would never have existed.
I think you might want to consider that some of the bible might have existed before there were any Christians. Maybe?!
Yes, sorry, I should have said ‘New Testament’. Though I’m not sure the Old Testament was referred to as the Bible before the Church came into being and New Testament books were added? I’m sure there’s a scholar on TA who knows.
Can you explain how the message of Jesus would spread without a Church? What is the point of someone still existing if they were totally forgotten?
The message of Jesus spreads because God exists and is powerful to raise up people to form the church that declares His name. We know that happened as Christ was resurrected and ascended and the church grew through the ministry of the apostles after the Holy Spirit dwelt on them after Pentecost. Christ is the reason we have the church. The church is upheld by God not solely through the efforts of men. You’re putting the cart before the horse, the only reason the church exists is because God enabled it to exist. Christ would have raised the church up… Read more »
Are talking about the Church or the church. In other words, a hierarchical powerful organisation, which believes it should hold and teach the beliefs of the Church, and members should follow those teachings, or a community of believers who discern and share their beliefs. Of course, Jesus comes before the Church or the church. In some kind of confused logic, I hear some in the Church suggest that the Church is more central than Christ because of the Mass and Transubstantiation. What nonsense. A hierarchical organisation with firm beliefs has always been attractive to certain (male?) people. It maintains a… Read more »
You are rather offensive to those millions of devout Christians who believe they encounter Jesus regularly in the Sacrifice of the Mass .It is not nonsense. Christ is at the centre of the Church which He founded.. To say that a “sense of belonging” is attractive only to males is ridiculous.
You are twisting my words, yet again. You seem to have a habit of this. You also seem unable to follow simple logic. The sentence you don’t like starts with I hear some in the Church suggest that the Church is more central than Christ…. and the fact that many believe they encounter Jesus at the mass in no way contradicts my statement. Let me break it down. If someone believes in encountering Christ at the Mass, that reinforces the idea that Christ is more central the the Church. If Christ is at the centre of the Church, as you… Read more »
The discussion here is about whether Christ can be proclaimed without a Church. Obviously Christ has primacy over the Church. But without a Church there can be no Christ.
You are mixing up ‘can be proclaimed’ and ‘exists’. Please be more precise.
Stonehenge “exists”. Except for a few sun worshippers, it’s largely irrelevant. Christ could still “exist” without the Church, but be totally irrelevant and meaningless.
Not if you believe in the Trinity. God exists, with or without the church.
In the beginning was the word.
I think this debate has gone beyond useful value some time ago.
Best wishes.
Thank you for being honest. Without the Church there would be no Christian message. No Church. No gospel. You don’t explain why God’s efforts at enabling the Church are leading to rapid decline. He seems not to be very good at mission.
You’re intentionally misreading what I wrote if you come to this conclusion.
The gospel is from Christ, the church are those who follow Christ. He raised them up to spread the gospel.
If we conclude that there’s no gospel without the church we’re ignoring that the only reason we have church at all is because of God.
Globally the church is growing, and sections of the church in the UK are growing also even if it tends to be largely outside of mainline denominations.
The global church is not growing as a proportion of the world’s population.
There was once (mid-20th Century) a Bishop of Bombay called Lash, William Quinlan Lash. When I saw your name on TA I wondered whether there is a connection. Bishop Lash was later in the Truro diocese.
Surely the Holy Spirit dwelt in the Apostles rather than on them? But you’re right that the Church is not upheld solely through the efforts of men – many local churches would not exist were it not for the efforts of women.
Exactly. I have a few thoughts. The big question is not whether god exists or not, which seems to be of concern in the secular world, the big question is the nature of God. Whatever the nature, I cannot believe it includes any concept of gender or sex, neither does it include a long white beard. It also seems strange that nobody has mention Mary. I do not at all follow a Roman Catholic approach to Mary, I would never pray to Mary, but I fear protestants have thrown out the baby with the bath water? The Magnificat is one… Read more »
‘I would never pray to Mary’. Neither would I – in theory. But there have been times when I have been led to enlist the help of the Mother of God, and guess what ? Things have happened beyond my comprehension, and I am quite happy to sing ‘Hail. Mary you are full of grace , above all women blest’. So I wouldn’t for one moment deny, for example, the special role that Walsingham plays in the Church of England. People might care to analyse that complexity but for me it works.
What is maybe interesting is the bath water some traditions, such as the Iwerne camps, have thrown out, through unfounded fear.
“Follow me“: Yes, of course Jesus said that. Who did he say it to? One individual (personal relationship)? Or to all of us (the Body)? We gather for Eucharist as the Body of Christ, proclaiming We believe. We are the church. Jesus is present in the Eucharist because we as a body say AMEN. I’m elderly and housebound; I don’t pray my Father; I pray Our Father.
Actually he said, and still says it, both individually to each one of us and to his church as a corporate body. And we affirm it with our response. Amen to that.
I thought of the discussion here about gendered language in prayer and worship this morning while singing the Palm Sunday procession hymn, ‘All glory, laud and honour’ – that line about ‘mortal men and all things’ … worshipping. So men are covered separately. ‘All things’ presumably takes in women, and perhaps animals and trees. Immortal men need not worry they are excluded as they presumably have a hymn book of their own.
Doesn’t the phrase “mortal men” embrace women as well as men?
‘Man’ and ‘Mankind’ traditionally presumed to speak for all – but never ‘men’.
A single counter-example should be sufficient! “who for us men and for our salvation” in Cranmer’s translation of the Nicene Creed has been in use for over 450 years.
Sufficient for what Simon? To illustrate how far back our problem with male centred language goes? Once you use ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ to speak of all humanity you make women invisible and it is a very short step to assuming that ‘men’ does too, and that male experience speaks for women. It doesn’t and it never has.
Sufficient — to disprove you assertion that “men” was never used to refer to both males and females. Clearly it was. One counter-example disproves the “never”. That’s all. If you like here’s another, of the same provenance: Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, goodwill towards men.
Both these phrases were deeply engrained in English usage for hundreds of years, and there are countless other examples. (And please do note that I making an historical point, no more and no less.)
You are absolutely right Simon. I meant to acknowledge that. Apologies for crashing on with my own agenda! At the risk of generalising again, I think that making man and men a universal was damaging then and it still doing damage now.
I’m still getting used to the idea that ‘guys’ includes women. I am not proposing that we pray to ‘Guy’.
Thank you, Nigel – I forgot that one in my comment above to Simon Kershaw. It seems, even we try to be gender free in our choices, we still gravitate towards the masculine.
I’m not sure that ‘dolls’ would be appreciated by all men!
Apart from Peter Doll.
For those of us brought up in the USA, ‘guys’ has included girls and women for at least 50 years.
In plural, but does singular ‘guy’ still mainly refer to a man? ‘I like that guy’ still means a woman likes a man? So God can refer to the people of the church ‘you guys’ but the people of the church cannot refer to God as ‘Guy’?
I certainly wouldn’t suggest we refer to God as ‘Guy’. That would be disrespectful. Besides, ‘guy’ reminds Brits of the Gunpowder Plot, the burning of effigies, and figures of fun.
Neither would I! Even in a happy clappy (hate the phrase) worship. The awesomeness of God (ref. Job) is sometimes forgotten.
I never really liked the ‘we have a friend in Jesus’ approach, for worshippers above the age of 8.
It works for some of us. And historically there is ample precedent for regarding Jesus as a friend or even a lover. That need not be incompatible with respect and awe for Christ, though I agree that at times the mateyness can just be too much, and border on the disrespectful.
One of the books on my shelves says that, stereotypically, heterosexual men tend to relate to God vertically as father, lord, and king. Whereas women and gay men prefer the horizontal imagery of God as friend, brother, lover, often in the person of Jesus.
I think there is a lot of truth in that. Some of the mediaeval mystics and some Beguine spiritual writing about Jesus is quite embodied and steamy.
Being an old book it did not comment on lesbian spirituality, which is a pity as I would love to know the answer.
That’s interesting, and it makes sense. ‘You’re my friend and you are my brother, even though you are a king’ pretty much sums up how I feel about Jesus. I have a different image of God the Creator, much more awe-inspiring.
The friend and lover images of Jesus go back a long way. St Jerome wrote to one of his young female virgin followers that ‘when thou art alone in thy room, Christ will steal through the lattice and stroke thy belly.’ I’m not sure where that puts Jerome on the heterosexual/gay spectrum, according to the author you cite!
But that was written in the days when people happily accepted that ‘men’ meant all of human kind and, for some of, that’s still acceptable.
‘in the days ….’ – but it is clear from this discussion thread and elsewhere in the Christian church that many still do this and think it is acceptable.
Just to throw one more piece of information in to the discussion, not in response to any post but simply to add an interesting bit of data. I was reading Angela Saini’s “The Patriarchs” this morning. Her thesis is that right across the world most civilisations were gender egalitarian, cooperative, and often matrilineal before patriarchy arrived. Patriarchy arrived in the Middle East a few thousand years ago, but in places like the Americas, South India, the Pacific Islands etc, patriarchy was imposed by European colonisation. Many indigenous American cultures still retain cultural memories of a recent past with immense female… Read more »
Fascinating. Thank you for this!
Could be altered to folk without much trouble
Not really related to this thread but just noticed Melvyn Bragg’s 9am R4 programme on Maundy Thursday will be about biblical typology. They’re usually excellent discussions with top academics so should be worth a listen.
Holy week blessings (and radio silence from here on out).
And blessing to you Anglican Priest. We seem to be at opposite ends of an academic debate, but I am glad that we can exist in the same debate, and I do reflect carefully on, and learn from, your posts.
For what it is worth, my understanding is that in English, the word “man” originally was a generic term for human beings, while there were other specific terms for males and females. “In Old English the words wer and wīf were used to refer to “a male” and “a female” respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of “person” or “human” regardless of gender.”
How these terms related is shown by the following Old English text:
“God gesceop ða æt fruman twegen men, wer and wif
(then at the beginning, God created two human beings, man and woman)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)