BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) – Delegates of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) are to tackle whether to adopt gender-inclusive language for worship of the divine Trinity along with the traditional "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
A study panel said the classical language for the Trinity shouldn’t be diminished, but advocated "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church’s vocabulary of praise and wonder."
One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to women," the panel said.
Conservatives object that the church should stick close to the way God is named in the Bible.
Among the feminist-inspired, gender-inclusive options:
– "Mother, Child and Womb"
– "Lover, Beloved, Love"
– "Creator, Savior, Sanctifier"
– "Rock, Redeemer, Friend"
– "King of Glory, Prince of Peace, Spirit of Love."
[Via Jay Anderson]
I am scratching my head trying to figure out how "Mother, Child and Womb" would be gender inclusive? I just don’t think people praying "Come womb" or "being filled with the womb" will catch on. Inclusive language is just one of the dumbest reactions to a non-problem there is. We see article after article and books on the fact about the growing gender divide with less and less men attending Church. Yet they see language as what needs to be addressed to bring more women in. Sure getting rid of the usage of Father and Son will really attract more men.
Besides the whole thing is just impolite. I would like to be introduced to one of these inclusive language promoters and when they tell me their name I would after that always refer to them by a totally different name. If they say "but you can call me Joan" I would call them Jim instead. If they complain that I am not using their correct name I would simply tell them "Well God through Holy Scripture has told us how we are to address him and you have decided to call him by something totally different so I’m just doing the same thing."
26 comments
How about Big Daddy, Dude and The Spook? (That would keep with the 60’s theme that these sorts of people seem to have).
“expand the church’s vocabulary of praise and wonder.”
Liberalspeak is so funny.
Run, the Heck, Away
Why stick with womb? Why not “birth canal” or “uterus?”
You know, “King” is masculine, just as “Prince” is. The last of the these is no more gender inclusive and even retains the same genders. Somebody didn’t do their homework.
Where this kind of thing will become a profound problem is RCIA programs. Candidates for full communion may need to receive conditional baptism from a Catholic priest, since if these aberrant forms are used in baptism, they would render it invalid.
Another problem with “Creator, Savior, Sanctifier,” is that it promotes modalism rather than a true view of the Triune God.
This does seem funny, but Naomi makes a good point about the problems. Thank God for the Magisterium.
“The Lord or Lady your God or Goddess is your only God or Goddess. You shall not have false gods or goddesses before Him or Her.”
“dumbest response to a non-problem.” I was involved in feminism in the early 70’s. Inclusive language was a really big thing then, as big or bigger than abortion. Remember when every noun that ended in “man” had to be changed to end in “person” as in “policeperson?” The leaders of the movement at that time were open about the real agenda when speaking among the true believers. They acknowledged that women understood that the word “man” also referred to them but that was unacceptable. Making the minor changes-policeperson,him and/or her, other inclusive language-was just the first step. The final goal was the destruction of Christianity. Get rid of Father God and replace Him w/ a goddess. The feminists knew something that some in the Church seem to have forgotten-how we pray is ultimately what we believe.
my vote is for
“Rock, Paper, Scissor”
If they get rid of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Ghost,” my vote would be for “eenie, meenie, and minie moe” reflective of the pick and choose your own doctrine to follow.
I can’t speak to all of the analogies, but the “lover, beloved, love” triad was used by St Augustine in his De Trinitate.
Whether Augustine’s theology accompanies the present use of his language of analogy is another question.
Wouldn’t “Mother, Child and Womb” cause some problems with their pro-choice views? I think it would have to be something like “Mother, Lump of Tissue and Womb”.
Good form, Zippy.
There’s a priest at my parish who keeps saying “God, who is our Father and Mother…”; I’ve been so tempted to greet him saying “Hi, Mother!”…
(Now, seriously, please pray for his mother, she died a couple of days ago. Pray for him too).
This “inclusive language” isn’t just trivial and silly, it is ultimately destructive because by dumbing down the language, the essential message gets lost. If you want to see the ridiculous lengths these people will go to, you don’t have to go any farther than your local Episcopal Church. This is the sad result of a denomination determined to destroy itself. The Presbyterians should heed the warning, but probably won’t. The Protestant denominations are lemmings on the same path. The first one over the cliff was the United Church of Christ, and other denominations have been lining up behind them ever since. So sad.
The Presbyterians shredding their theology and what was recorded by St. Catherine of Siena in a conversation with God: “I AM WHO AM and you are she who is not” seems to confirm along with other statements and actions that putting a woman in charge of dogma, to me, seem to be at risk of muddying the waters, “looking for nuances”[a female favorite buzzword], layers of the onion, over-complicating things, looking for inclusion[another]. I believe that God chose men-only because of certain traits and perhaps because of our Fall. Woman brought Man down easily with seduction, allegorical or literal. This is not to say “Man is superior to Woman”, but it is to say that maybe Man is better suited for God’s purpose as a priest and keeper of the flame….than a woman. Women are needed, obviously. My Mom kept us on track and has never wavered. But modern women make me worry. We are equal, but one or the other is often better suited for specific tasks(however small the list may be).
How’s about:
“Me, Myself, and I”
You know, “King” is masculine, just as “Prince” is.
Prince hasn’t been masculine since “Purple Rain”.
While we’re at it why not “Larry, Moe and Curly”? Oh, those are masculine. My bad.
Uhhhh….this is the very type of crap that drove me out of the PCUSA and home to Rome.
I was at their General Assembly one year and the gays took over the meeting and we lost a whole day of work because they protested in the middle of our meeting. We had to quit for the day – when your denomination is paying big bucks for a convention center and hotel rooms for delegates and meal vouchers – this is very bad stewardship and very selfish.
The PCUSA has wasted more time on these issues than I care to think about. Every year it’s the same thing – the freakazoid liberals with their axes to grind hijack the meetings and the conservative Presbyterians just sit there and try to ‘dialogue’ with these hooligans. When are they going to get it? When are they going to realize they need to just make these people leave? The disruption they cause is beyond annoying. I suppose they will finally understand when there are only a handful of PCUSAers left.
At any rate, my husband and I couldn’t stand the garbage anymore and headed for the hills – the 7 hills, that is 🙂
They are a dying church and it’s easy to see why.
Terencia,
Person. I recall that my editor overruled the reference to noisy “personhole” covers in the street.
Now you know why I swam the Tiber to escape that crowd in the Presbyterian Church of Babylonian. I was asleep at the wheel then … but those days are over.
They profess to worship Jesus, then denounce his gender. They even call him a liar when he refers to God as his Father.
Those people are not Christian. They do not have a clue what Christianity is. But they are pagan, and they are hell bent to create a pagan pantheon filled with he/she/it gender issues.
Those are not Christian churches … those are pagan shrines built over defiled Christian churches.
True Presbyterians are instructed by their own charter to return to Rome if and when the conditions warrant it … and I’d say the current conditions very much warrant it.
Just so you’ll know … this happened because Presbyterians embraced birth control and abortion. Then one day their curches were empty, so their apostate clergy threw open the doors, let the pagans in, placed abominations on their altars and in their pulpits … and God walked out.
Remember … they want to do the same to Rome. The pagans infiltrated and have done their worst to Rome … and, despite the heretic cardinals and bishops in our ranks pretending to be Catholic when they are not even Christian, God gave us good Popes, and Rome is driving them out … and Rome is still standing.
As long as Rome continues to stand, the paganized churches continue to look rediculous.
GOD is not a TRIUNE ……..God is a Trinity. If you do not know the difference, run fast and find out. The so called TRIUNE is the PAGAN toe in the door of Rome … get a clue.
The “mother, child, womb” language oddly creates its own kind of sexist double-standard–proponents use the thoroughly feminine term “mother,” but they use the genderless “child” for an incarnate Being who is undeniably, anatomically, male. Also, it seems odd to me to call a divine being who is rather powerful and all grown up a “child.” Bad theological terminology makes adult Jesus cry.
Do you honestly think that if Jesus had been talking to a male mystic, He wouldn’t have said, “And you are he who is not”?
*rolls eyes*
You have missed the point, which had nothing to do with gender. The point was that God is All, and everything else is Nothing. We only exist insofar as we allow ourselves to be part of Christ’s Body. And indeed, many male mystics — and priests — do make exactly this point.
As it happens, I stand with Mother Church and against women’s ordination. But if I had been for it, your mistaken argument would have proved to me that your opposition was not rooted in faith and a reluctance to presume to teach Jesus whom he should have instituted as priests, but rather in Patriarchal Meanieness. This is not helpful.
Sorry, but I couldn’t see anywhere else to slip this in:
Has anyone heard of the Presbyterian-leaning group of disgruntled Catholics? (Who of course believe in predestination.)
VOICE OF THE FATEFUL….
Sorry, couldn’t help it.
Comments are closed.