Archbishop of York - Lord's Prayer is problematic because of the word Father

IceJad · Jul 9, 2023

Archbishop of York has problems with the patriarchy inherent in the Lord's Prayer

“For if this God to whom we pray is ‘Father’ – and, yes, I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us have laboured rather too much from an oppressively, patriarchal grip on life – then those of us who […]

anglican.ink

I really don't know why he is still a Christian at this point. Since he clearly don't think that our Lord Jesus made the right decision in teaching us how to pray. The literal personification of God's trinity.

This is so backwards in his teachings. Father as a word is seen as problematic because of the shortfall of earthly fathers. Instead of the word Father taking the high ground by associating with the ideal divine patriarch, the "bishop" rather sink into the grime and associate it the earthly failing.

So what now? Are Anglicans to self censor in communal prayers? To never utter the word Father out of fear that it would offend people who haven't had a good experience with their fathers?

To me it is more importantly so that the word Father be use for these people. To show them that what true Fatherhood is - how God Himself intended.

But hey that's just my thoughts as a Lutheran. Not that we Lutherans are any more immune to secular progressive intrusion into our churches.

PloverWing · Jul 9, 2023

What I hear in the speech is that the archbishop is acknowledging, pastorally, that the word "Father" is difficult for some Christians. If your father was abusive, or domineering, or kicked you out of the house because you offended him in some way, then the word "father" may feel like a punch in the stomach to you. I've had conversations with people who were in this situation. And the archbishop is acknowledging the reality of this.

But in his speech he goes on to explore the metaphor of fatherhood anyway, to call us into the awareness of being in a household and family with each other, with God as our Father. It sounds pretty Christian to me.

The Liturgist · Jul 9, 2023

PloverWing said:
What I hear in the speech is that the archbishop is acknowledging, pastorally, that the word "Father" is difficult for some Christians. If your father was abusive, or domineering, or kicked you out of the house because you offended him in some way, then the word "father" may feel like a punch in the stomach to you. I've had conversations with people who were in this situation. And the archbishop is acknowledging the reality of this.

But in his speech he goes on to explore the metaphor of fatherhood anyway, to call us into the awareness of being in a household and family with each other, with God as our Father. It sounds pretty Christian to me.

Consdering that Christianity entails a belief in God the Father according to the Nicene Creed, and rejection of the Nicene Creed is heresy per se, there really can be no accommodation made for those who for whatever reason have issues with the word “Father.” It is central to the Christian faith.

What this really tells me is the Church of England needs to do more to move in an Anglo Catholic direction by promoting those parishes which most actively venerated the Blessed Virgin Mary, for example, All Saints Margaret Street in South London, which has a strong devotion to Our Lady of Walsingham.

public hermit · Jul 9, 2023

Is the Father human? No. Does the Father have male genitalia? No. Is the Father ubiquitous, eternal Spirit, the Source and Goal of all that is, and yet not captured by any of our ideas? Yes. We can stop worshipping our anthropomorphic ideas at any time and accept that our best ideas of the "Father" fall short of the reality. This apophaticism is part and parcel of orthodox faith. If you think the 1st Person of the Trinity is a big human, the reference of "Father," you are outside of the faith of the fathers. Grow up (in the faith).

The Liturgist · Jul 9, 2023

public hermit said:
Is the Father human? No. Does the Father have male genitalia? No. Is the Father ubiquitous, eternal Spirit, the Source and Goal of all that is, and yet not captured by any of our ideas? Yes. We can stop worshipping our anthropomorphic ideas at any time and accept that our best ideas of the "Father" fall short of the reality. This apophaticism is part and parcel of orthodox faith. If you think the 1st Person of the Trinity is a big human, the reference of "Father," you are outside of the faith of the fathers. Grow up (in the faith).

Indeed, it is important that people expurgate from their mind any Zeus-like image of God the Father. When I was a little boy, I made the mistake of envisaging God the Father as a sort of Zeus-like figure with a long flowing beard, et cetera, but such a view is more likely than not in error (although there are some people who believe that St. Isaiah’s view of the Ancient of Days was of the Father, but at least among the Orthodox, most argue that the Ancient of Days was Jesus Christ, and the majority opinion is that it is uncanonical to have icons that pictorially depict the Father, although such icons do exist and there is a minority view that they are acceptable, and indeed I did recently come across a paper in defense of such icons).

public hermit · Jul 9, 2023

The Liturgist said:
Indeed, it is important that people expurgate from their mind any Zeus-like image of God the Father. When I was a little boy, I made the mistake of envisaging God the Father as a sort of Zeus-like figure with a long flowing beard, et cetera, but such a view is more likely than not in error (although there are some people who believe that St. Isaiah’s view of the Ancient of Days was of the Father, but at least among the Orthodox, most argue that the Ancient of Days was Jesus Christ, and the majority opinion is that it is uncanonical to have icons that pictorially depict the Father, although such icons do exist and there is a minority view that they are acceptable, and indeed I did recently come across a paper in defense of such icons).

Anthropomorphic conceptions are understandable, but at some point we have to accept our limitations in conceptualizing the 1st person. What we cannot do is defend a purported orthodox position of what makes a "Christian" while ignoring the clear apophaticism that runs throughout the theology of those who framed orthodoxy, particularly as exemplified by the Cappadocians. I get it if people need a crutch for their weakness; we all are weak when it comes to conceptualizing God. And I get that our Lord set the standard by teaching us to pray to our Father. But we should never let these discussions descend into some faux certainty about the nature and Person of the Father as if the word "Father" captures the essence.

IceJad · Jul 9, 2023

PloverWing said:
What I hear in the speech is that the archbishop is acknowledging, pastorally, that the word "Father" is difficult for some Christians.

His choice of word is "problematic" used in the most modern current time connotation. As a pastor to his flock, he should have acknowledge that not everyone has a good relationship with their parents (father & mother). However God provides through His grace and love the perfect fatherhood.

I haven't had the best relationship with my grandfather, due to his human failing. I love him for who he is but I'll never be like him. However I will never go so far as to associate God the Father with the shortcomings of my grandfather. The word Father didn't trigger any sort of reaction.

If any Christian has a problem with the word Father, then there is no way about it. God Himself identifies as a Father figure, our Lord Jesus reinforced this through His teachings. And most importantly that is the kind of relationship God wants with us. We are but servants, but the Lord made us His children. He is Father. We don't get to reinterpret the kind of relationship God wants.

As a bishop to say the Lord's prayer (our ideal communication with God) as problematic is near blasphemous. All this entails is God You were wrong for You didn't foresee people who have bad relationship with their earthly fathers. You could have worded it better.

PloverWing · Jul 9, 2023

The Liturgist said:
What this really tells me is the Church of England needs to do more to move in an Anglo Catholic direction by promoting those parishes which most actively venerated the Blessed Virgin Mary, for example, All Saints Margaret Street in South London, which has a strong devotion to Our Lady of Walsingham.

I think you lost me. I gather that it's important to you that Christians continue to use the metaphor of God as a parent, because that metaphor was important to Jesus, and I can see that point. Jesus did use parental language when talking about God, and we need to try to see God through Jesus' eyes, if we can.

But I don't follow how venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary helps us to see God as a parent. Can you elaborate for me?

PloverWing · Jul 9, 2023

IceJad said:
If any Christian has a problem with the word Father, then there is no way about it. God Himself identifies as a Father figure, our Lord Jesus reinforced this through His teachings. And most importantly that is the kind of relationship God wants with us. We are but servants, but the Lord made us His children. He is Father. We don't get to reinterpret the kind of relationship God wants.

As a bishop to say the Lord's prayer (our ideal communication with God) as problematic is near blasphemous. All this entails is God You were wrong for You didn't foresee people who have bad relationship with their earthly fathers. You could have worded it better.

Scripture provides us with many metaphors for God. God is like a father, a king, a potter, a fire, a fortress, a rock, a shepherd, light, water. All of these tell us something important about God, and all of these are limited, because God is not exactly identical to any created thing.

IceJad · Jul 10, 2023

PloverWing said:
Scripture provides us with many metaphors for God. God is like a father, a king, a potter, a fire, a fortress, a rock, a shepherd, light, water. All of these tell us something important about God, and all of these are limited, because God is not exactly identical to any created thing.

All good and all, however what did our Lord Jesus thought us to pray using? Why start with Our Father? And why are we known as co-heirs to Christ? Because God is our Father.

God has been known by many titles, in terms of relationship with us Lord Jesus has always emphasize on a Fatherly relationship. To not be able to accept Father is to deny His preferred relationship method with us. All other relationships like Master & servant, God & creation, Potter & clay pale in comparison to Father & child.

The Liturgist · Jul 10, 2023

public hermit said:
Anthropomorphic conceptions are understandable, but at some point we have to accept our limitations in conceptualizing the 1st person. What we cannot do is defend a purported orthodox position of what makes a "Christian" while ignoring the clear apophaticism that runs throughout the theology of those who framed orthodoxy, particularly as exemplified by the Cappadocians. I get it if people need a crutch for their weakness; we all are weak when it comes to conceptualizing God. And I get that our Lord set the standard by teaching us to pray to our Father. But we should never let these discussions descend into some faux certainty about the nature and Person of the Father as if the word "Father" captures the essence.

On this point I disagree, in that while conceptualizing the Father anthropomorphologically is an error, the Father is still the Father, according to His relationship with the Son and with us. To quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, in his most important theological work, The Orthodox Way:

“Why speak of God as Father and Son, and not as Mother and Daughter? In itself the Godhead possesses neither maleness nor femininity. Although our human sexual characteristics as male and female reflect, at their highest and truest, an aspect of the divine life, yet there is in God no such thing as sexuality. When, therefore, we speak of God as Father, we are speaking not literally but in symbols. Yet why should the symbols be masculine rather than feminine? Why call God 'he' and not 'she'? In fact, Christians have sometimes applied 'mother language' to God. Aphrahat, one of the early Syriac Fathers, speaks of the believer's love for 'God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother', while in the medieval West we find the Lady Julian of Norwich affirming: 'God rejoices that he is our Father, and God rejoices that he is our Mother.' But these are exceptions. Almost always the symbolism used of God by the Bible and in the Church's worship has been male symbolism.

We cannot prove by arguments why this should be so, yet it remains a fact of our Christian experi ence that God has set his seal upon certain symbols and not upon others. The symbols are not chosen by us but revealed and given. A symbol can be verified, lived, prayed - but not 'proved' logically. These 'given' symbols, however, while not capable of proof, are yet far from being arbitrary. Like the symbols in myth, literature and art, our religious symbols reach deep into the hidden roots of our being, and cannot be altered without momentous consequences. If, for example, we were to start saying 'Our Mother who art in heaven', instead of 'Our Father', we should not merely be adjusting an incidental piece of imagery, but replacing Christianity with a new kind of religion. A Mother Goddess is not the Lord of the Christian Church.”

The Liturgist · Jul 10, 2023

IceJad said:
All good and all, however what did our Lord Jesus thought us to pray using? Why start with Our Father? And why are we known as co-heirs to Christ? Because God is our Father.

God has been known by many titles, in terms of relationship with us Lord Jesus has always emphasize on a Fatherly relationship. To not be able to accept Father is to deny His preferred relationship method with us. All other relationships like Master & servant, God & creation, Potter & clay pale in comparison to Father & child.

This is entirely correct.

The Liturgist · Jul 10, 2023

PloverWing said:
I think you lost me. I gather that it's important to you that Christians continue to use the metaphor of God as a parent, because that metaphor was important to Jesus, and I can see that point. Jesus did use parental language when talking about God, and we need to try to see God through Jesus' eyes, if we can.

But I don't follow how venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary helps us to see God as a parent. Can you elaborate for me?

Venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God helps to ensure doctrinal orthodoxy, and makes accepting God the Father as our Heavenly Father much easier, because the Theotokos will bring healing to those who may have been traumatized by their human fathers or indeed by their sons, allowing them to love her Son Christ our God and His heavenly Father, ensuring they accept and retain the indwelling Holy Spirit.

public hermit · Jul 10, 2023

The Liturgist said:
On this point I disagree, in that while conceptualizing the Father anthropomorphologically is an error, the Father is still the Father, according to His relationship with the Son and with us. To quote Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, in his most important theological work, The Orthodox Way:

“Why speak of God as Father and Son, and not as Mother and Daughter? In itself the Godhead possesses neither maleness nor femininity. Although our human sexual characteristics as male and female reflect, at their highest and truest, an aspect of the divine life, yet there is in God no such thing as sexuality. When, therefore, we speak of God as Father, we are speaking not literally but in symbols. Yet why should the symbols be masculine rather than feminine? Why call God 'he' and not 'she'? In fact, Christians have sometimes applied 'mother language' to God. Aphrahat, one of the early Syriac Fathers, speaks of the believer's love for 'God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother', while in the medieval West we find the Lady Julian of Norwich affirming: 'God rejoices that he is our Father, and God rejoices that he is our Mother.' But these are exceptions. Almost always the symbolism used of God by the Bible and in the Church's worship has been male symbolism.

We cannot prove by arguments why this should be so, yet it remains a fact of our Christian experi ence that God has set his seal upon certain symbols and not upon others. The symbols are not chosen by us but revealed and given. A symbol can be verified, lived, prayed - but not 'proved' logically. These 'given' symbols, however, while not capable of proof, are yet far from being arbitrary. Like the symbols in myth, literature and art, our religious symbols reach deep into the hidden roots of our being, and cannot be altered without momentous consequences. If, for example, we were to start saying 'Our Mother who art in heaven', instead of 'Our Father', we should not merely be adjusting an incidental piece of imagery, but replacing Christianity with a new kind of religion. A Mother Goddess is not the Lord of the Christian Church.”

His admission that "Father" is a symbol is the salient point. What does the symbol represent? That's what matters. And what the symbol represents (parental care and love, eternal generation of the 2nd Person, primary Source of all that is, etc.) undercuts distinctions humans might make between male and female.

I'm not saying we should jettison the language we use in prayer and liturgy, at all. I don't think that is the way to go. But I do think it needs to be made clear that "Father" is a symbol, what that symbol represents is neither male nor female, and the Referent of that symbol is ultimately inscrutable. And, I don't think we are really disagreeing.

ETA: And maybe it helps to point out that if we project our experience of our earthly fathers onto the symbol "Father," we are getting the analogy backwards. Our heavenly Father is not somehow analogous to our earthly fathers; our earthly fathers and mothers are supposed to be somehow analogous to our heavenly Father in so far as they generate children (it takes both) and provide goods, love, discipline, and care for their children. Both earthly fathers and mothers are supposed to be like our Father in heaven so that the distinction between male and female breaks down, again. If someone struggles with "Father" language because their earthly father was horrible, if their earthly mother did provide love and care, then they should think of their mother's love as analogous to the love of our Father. If neither parent embodied those parental characteristics, then they should look elsewhere for analogous examples. And if language of "Father" is too traumatic for them, then they should look past the symbol just as we all should.

But to be clear, if someone decides to pray, "Our Mother in heaven..." intending the same referent as those who pray "Our Father..." I will not bat an eye, and I am confident their prayer is heard by the One in whom we live and move and have our being. Ultimately, God is neither this (male) nor that (female) but One.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 10, 2023

IceJad said:
Archbishop of York has problems with the patriarchy inherent in the Lord's Prayer

“For if this God to whom we pray is ‘Father’ – and, yes, I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us have laboured rather too much from an oppressively, patriarchal grip on life – then those of us who […]

anglican.ink

I really don't know why he is still a Christian at this point. Since he clearly don't think that our Lord Jesus made the right decision in teaching us how to pray. The literal personification of God's trinity.

This is so backwards in his teachings. Father as a word is seen as problematic because of the shortfall of earthly fathers. Instead of the word Father taking the high ground by associating with the ideal divine patriarch, the "bishop" rather sink into the grime and associate it the earthly failing.

So what now? Are Anglicans to self censor in communal prayers? To never utter the word Father out of fear that it would offend people who haven't had a good experience with their fathers?

To me it is more importantly so that the word Father be use for these people. To show them that what true Fatherhood is - how God Himself intended.

But hey that's just my thoughts as a Lutheran. Not that we Lutherans are any more immune to secular progressive intrusion into our churches.

WHAT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Folks actually have a problem with Jesus calling God, "Daddy"?

And yes, I'm FULLY aware that many folks today have abusive fathers and have little idea what a "Good Dad" even looks like, but we don't need to change the language and/or referents; we need to receive pychiatric treatment AND hermeneutical education so we can better understand the intended message rather than 'adapt' the message ................................................................................. that calling God, "Daddy" has very little to do with "Patriarchy."

Reality doesn't actually bend for us just because we're having a hard time in life......................................... so on Earth as it is in Heaven.

seekingHiswisdom · Jul 10, 2023

Simply stated.... Our Lord and Savior, Jesus told us to pray in Mathew 6:9 ... depending on your translation of choice
they all mean the same thing.

NASB95 Math 6:9 ‘Our Father, who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.

Catholic Online Math 6:9 9 So you should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, may your name be held holy,

NO matter which ...if our Lord and Savior, by whom we wont get to heaven without, said this is the was we should pray, what a slap in the face to question Him.

Jsut sayin.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 10, 2023

public hermit said:
His admission that "Father" is a symbol is the salient point. What does the symbol represent? That's what matters. And what the symbol represents (parental care and love, eternal generation of the 2nd Person, primary Source of all that is, etc.) undercuts distinctions humans might make between male and female.

I'm not saying we should jettison the language we use in prayer and liturgy, at all. I don't think that is the way to go. But I do think it needs to be made clear that "Father" is a symbol, what that symbol represents is neither male nor female, and the Referent of that symbol is ultimately inscrutable. And, I don't think we are really disagreeing.

ETA: And maybe it helps to point out that if we project our experience of our earthly fathers onto the symbol "Father," we are getting the analogy backwards. Our heavenly Father is not somehow analogous to our earthly fathers; our earthly fathers and mothers are supposed to be somehow analogous to our heavenly Father in so far as they generate children (it takes both) and provide goods, love, discipline, and care for their children. Both earthly fathers and mothers are supposed to be like our Father in heaven so that the distinction between male and female breaks down, again. If someone struggles with "Father" language because their earthly father was horrible, if their earthly mother did provide love and care, then they should think of their mother's love as analogous to the love of our Father. If neither parent embodied those parental characteristics, then they should look elsewhere for analogous examples. And if language of "Father" is too traumatic for them, then they should look past the symbol just as we all should.

But to be clear, if someone decides to pray, "Our Mother in heaven..." intending the same referent as those who pray "Our Father..." I will not bat an eye, and I am confident their prayer is heard by the One in whom we live and move and have our being. Ultimately, God is neither this (male) nor that (female) but One.

I would bat an eye-lash. But at the same time, I'd draw a person's attention to the fact that Jesus also used 'feminine' metaphor to describe the intentions of both Him and the Father. Something about:

Matthew 23:37

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

The Liturgist · Jul 10, 2023

public hermit said:
But to be clear, if someone decides to pray, "Our Mother in heaven..." intending the same referent as those who pray "Our Father..." I will not bat an eye,

I would, because such a prayer would be heretical.

The Liturgist · Jul 10, 2023

public hermit said:
His admission that "Father" is a symbol is the salient point.

It is not an “admission”, but rather a stated fact, which is no less important than his conclusion, that if we substituted Mother and Daughter for Father and Son we would have a very different religion from Christianity. The entire thrust of his argument is that the symbols chosen by our Lord are not arbitrary but of vital importance, and Metropolitan Kallistos is entirely correct in this regard, which is fitting, considering he was a Metropolitan bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

public hermit · Jul 10, 2023

The Liturgist said:
is not an “admission”, but rather a stated fact, which is no less important than his conclusion, that if we substituted Mother and Daughter for Father and Son we would have a very different religion from Christianity

That's nonsense; it would just have different symbols. Of course, if you want to argue the symbol is essential to the divine nature, have at it, but that would also be nonsense.

Archbishop of York - Lord's Prayer is problematic because of the word Father

Regular Member

Episcopalian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

social troglodyte

Traditional Liturgical Christian

social troglodyte

Regular Member

Episcopalian

Episcopalian

Regular Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

social troglodyte

Mary Shelley, you were right !!

Active Member

Mary Shelley, you were right !!

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

social troglodyte

Similar threads