Church of England to consider use of gender-neutral terms for God

[Boiler 45,441]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/07/church-of-england-to-consider-use-of-gender-neutral-terms-for-god

 

The Church of England is considering whether to stop referring to God as “he”, after priests asked to be allowed to use gender-neutral terms instead.

The church said it would launch a new commission on the matter in the spring. Any potential alterations, which would mark a departure from traditional teachings dating back millennia, would have to be approved by synod, the Church’s decision-making body.

The Rt Rev Dr Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield and vice-chair of the liturgical commission responsible for the matter, said the church had been “exploring the use of gendered language in relation to God for several years”.

[TBoneTX 45,244]

Better clear things with God first.

[TXRancher 7]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Better clear things with God first.

I'd love to hear her opinion on that issue.

[yuna628 9,671]

So can anyone tell me exactly what the problem is?

 

God, in our understanding doesn't actually have a gender, because there is no physical body. We cannot conceptualize god, we cannot tell ourselves what they look like, and there is no accurate visual representation. God is the embodiment of everything everywhere everyone all at once. Until the concept of a Triune, there was no visualization of God on earth. Yeshua, is considered the son of god - a physical manifestation only. So why is "He" used, you may ask? References to "He" in a divine gender concept, came about as a way to better relate to the Creator. Other religions required physical idols and specific genders to be understood. But what do you do, when this divine entity is everything? When it is aniconic only? How can a people relate to or understand it? A parent-child relationship. Father is best understood here not as gender specific terms, but as in Creator or begetter. Because the Creator is us, male and female, from the dust also created. You may note it said in a plural term "let US make man in OUR image" and Elohim is also plural in nature (which was then used as evidence for Triune theorists). No pastor will tell you that it means we are a literal physical image of God and none will tell you that God is gendered actual male. That central theme is woven throughout the Talmud and comes full circle in the NT. "I am what I am" is understood that God is whatever God wants at any moment. Even the angels can be referred to as genderless or having both characteristics. The presence of God, known as shekinah is thought to be in feminine terms. Specifically attributing or considering god as wholly male was never something that entered into mind originally. It was merely allegorical representation. God cannot be categorized, and to the Jew cannot be named either which is why there is omittance of characters in names. If there is outrage that thinking of God in terms of they, one really needs to look far back into early theological church history, and find plenty of early founders making these same exact arguments. Early Christianity kept with that tradition, with male references being an allegorical human concept only (of which the Bible is full of), so that the deity can be greater understood and it could distinguish itself in the importance of religion dominated by patriarchal society as it competed against others. Likewise, Islam does not have the pronoun to consider God as genderless, so references to "He" is still meant in allegorical terms and not literal ones. Transcendent all powerful entities do not have genders.

 

Consider here:

 

Quote

 

This follows directly from the fact that G-d has no physical form. As an Orthodox rabbi once said to me, G-d has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that G-d is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to G-d using masculine terms simply for convenience's sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; G-d is no more male than a table is.

Although we usually speak of G-d in masculine terms, there are times when we refer to G-d using feminine terms. The Shechinah, the manifestation of G-d's presence that fills the universe, is conceived of in feminine terms, and the word Shechinah is a feminine word. https://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

 

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, by which the CoE was once formed out of so long ago, does not dispute any of this and also maintains that they are neither male or female. Was it controversial in 2018 when the Archbishop of Canterbury declared the very same? That our human language cannot define the undefinable, and that God is genderless? No, he just said what the rest of the majority of the church always understood. To the average person that reads the Bible, you may not have even considered it at length - why the term "He" is used, when it is pretty clear that God is completely genderless and undefined by our tiny comprehension. You accept the words on the pages as they are and don't give it much else thought. That's okay, but once you start getting fixated on God in physical terms, when it's clear there is none, it might be time for deeper reading. Modern catechisms are often far off the beaten path in terms of how things are supposed to be in their respective religions, so to worry about this now is a little late.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by yuna628

[Boiler 45,441]

How are we to determine God's preferred pronouns?

[yuna628 9,671]

9 minutes ago, Boiler said:

How are we to determine God's preferred pronouns?

Develop a personal relationship with Christ and ask? Or you could ask your pastor, they'll help you figure it out.

 

Who are we to limit the omnipotent Creator?

Edited February 8, 2023 by yuna628

[Boiler 45,441]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Develop a personal relationship with Christ and ask? Or you could ask your pastor, they'll help you figure it out.

 

Who are we to limit the omnipotent Creator?

Sadly I am Agnostic,

 

Well no problem with Births Deaths and Marriages, which where the C of E seems to have gone.

 

I was just wondering how the omnipotent Creator was going to pass on their pronouns, a new tablet?

[TBoneTX 45,244]

To be safe, just use Xe Xim Xer.

[yuna628 9,671]

22 hours ago, Boiler said:

Sadly I am Agnostic,

 

Well no problem with Births Deaths and Marriages, which where the C of E seems to have gone.

 

I was just wondering how the omnipotent Creator was going to pass on their pronouns, a new tablet?

Passing on pronouns as you put it would be again another attempt to limit the understanding of a Creator into a box for our feeble comprehension. For practical purposes as close as it can be in our language it should be inferred, as the ancient scholars did (in all three major religions), that God is a genderless entity, so the closest word can be "they" "them" "us" "our". But there is nothing wrong with referring to "He" traditionally either, as it is not He in a masculine sense, but in a begetting Creator sense, when there once was no other way to describe the indescribable.

[Boiler 45,441]

That sounds more like it.

 

This is more an observation on large organisations but the CofE has been heading in the direction of irrelevancy for as long as I can remember, when I was at school we had a chapel service on a Friday morning but that stopped after the Football version of the Hymns were drowning out the original versions.

 

It is still very much heading in the same direction but surprising how long it takes. More logical for it to convert into some sort of Historical Preservation Society.

[Neonred 3,562]

Wow, now I'm confused.  

 

I saw God depicted as an elderly man in the ceiling painting at the Sistine Chapel.

 

I thought the Vatican was an authority on these type of things.

[TBoneTX 45,244]

I still think that God should be directly asked for His preferred pronouns.

[yuna628 9,671]

37 minutes ago, Boiler said:

That sounds more like it.

 

This is more an observation on large organisations but the CofE has been heading in the direction of irrelevancy for as long as I can remember, when I was at school we had a chapel service on a Friday morning but that stopped after the Football version of the Hymns were drowning out the original versions.

 

It is still very much heading in the same direction but surprising how long it takes. More logical for it to convert into some sort of Historical Preservation Society.

Well neither me or my husband have anything to do with the CoE, though we tend to think a lot of religions in general are heading for irrelevancy. I don't think that bringing their philosophy in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when it has always been kind of like a shared idea anyway makes them somehow more irrelevant. People will read their Bible and accept a He, and not think further on it, even when there is other meaning behind it. Maybe they will get upset to know god is not a He or a She or even anything in between in the literal sense, but they shouldn't be. I often think that if churches focused more on teaching rather than other nonsense at any given moment (and I'm not sure how much that goes on in the CoE compared to other institutions), people would have a greater understanding and appreciation for the text.

10 minutes ago, Neonred said:

Wow, now I'm confused.  

 

I saw God depicted as an elderly man in the ceiling painting at the Sistine Chapel.

 

I thought the Vatican was an authority on these type of things.

Well the Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear when it comes to a genderless god. The CoE seems to be following suit here? The Michelangelo work is very complex that is inspired from a variety of non-Biblical sources, and mythology (god is very Zeus-like here).. even still, symbolism of a male god is allegory only, as it has always been maintained that such a being has no physical gender or body. The painting has a hidden brain and uterus around the male figure representing god, which some would say is a message at what is needed for the creation of life.

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

If you believe in the trinity, it makes more sense to refer to God as "they" anyway. I don't know enough about the Church of England to know if that is part of their theology though.

 

How about getting rid of the blond, blue-eyed depictions of Jesus? lol 

[Ban Hammer 13,326]

4 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Passing on pronouns as you put it would be again another attempt to limit the understanding of a Creator into a box for our feeble comprehension. For practical purposes as close as it can be in our language it should be inferred, as the ancient scholars did (in all three major religions), that God is a genderless entity, so the closest word can be "they" "them" "us" "our". But there is nothing wrong with referring to "He" traditionally either, as it is not He in a masculine sense, but in a begetting Creator sense, when there once was no other way to describe the indescribable.

that god is a "he" should be quite obvious.  if god was a "she" she'd be constantly harping at us about how to drive, live our lives, clean up after ourselves, and put the toilet seat down.........