Church of Sweden to formally stop referring to God as "he"

[redleghunter]

Once God starts being portrayed in ways as female, then many things can be done to make HIM appear as something other than what HE is portrayed to be in scripture. God the Father being made into something in peoples' minds other than what scripture says. Then to no longer call him Lord is another thing. What is He now? Our equal?

Yes Jesus kept calling God the Father. Wonder how they will handle those passages. Will the Our Father be "Our Parent?"

 

[Basil the Great]

I know that they are not using it to refer to Mary. I was just referring to the Catholic position and how they would be surprised by what you have related.

 

[Basil the Great]

I imagine that the folks in the LC-MS probably think that the ELCA has really lost their way now. Having said that, the decision to allow gay pastors and perform same-sex blessings pretty much drove a wedge between the two denominations as it was.

 

[redleghunter]

It's part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, so it isn't surprising.

Don't worry got ya back on this Rion.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

No, I cannot quote Scripture, as you wish, and I have no problem with those of you who are concerned about this matter. Also, like most people, I tend to view God as a Father in Heaven. However, I just see no real harm in seeing him as a mother, as well as a father. After all, I doubt that God has a sexual identity like humans or animals do. Does it somehow harm our faith to quit referring to God as Father? I guess that is up to each person. It should not make much difference one way or the other, as long as we love God and keep His commandments.

I disagree with you assertion that it dows not matter when Jesus is oour example and he never refered to God as mother

Many examples in the words of Jesus
Our Farther which art in heaven
Father forgive them
Sermon on the mount
Ect....

Never Mother

To believe that you can substitute mother for father is a slippery slope to perdition. IMHO

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, because they start heading towards the 'divine feminine' like the ELCA has done, especially out in California.

Many traditional Roman Catholics visiting other parishes have noticed the subtle changes to local liturgy. I noticed such back in 2011 when taking my Catholic parents to church when visiting. I asked them afterwards how did that change? They told me their church in FL had not changed.

So I'd be curious if a Roman Catholic could tell me what's going on.

I found this in crisis magazine:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/inclusive-language-and-the-liturgy

 

[Basil the Great]

I disagree with you assertion that it dows not matter when Jesus is oour example and he never refered to God as mother

Many examples in the words of Jesus
Our Farther which art in heaven
Father forgive them
Sermon on the mount
Ect....

Never Mother

To believe that you can substitute mother for father is a slippery slope to perdition. IMHO

Perhaps it is, perhaps not, but I would say that it pales in comparison to the divide within Protestantism over the acceptance of same sex blessings and the ordination of gay pastors in active relationships.

 

[Basil the Great]

I think you folks misunderstand me. I am not endorsing this change. It would not be my preference. I just do not see it as a critical thing, as long it does not go into the direction of the California branch of the ELCA.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can you explain this believe to us? Scripture please

Um. God is not 'physically' anything. So not 'physically' male or female. Except the eternal Son of the Father is incarnated as a physical male.

Now in Catholic theology the Father is male, the Son is male, and the Holy Spirit is male. But God is not male or female when considered as a whole. Based on that the Swedish State religion would be wrong to stop referring to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as male. Also wrong not to refer to God as Lord, either as Father or Son or Holy Spirit.

 

[Resha Caner]

Once God starts being portrayed in ways as female, then many things can be done to make HIM appear as something other than what HE is portrayed to be in scripture. God the Father being made into something in peoples' minds other than what scripture says. Then to no longer call him Lord is another thing. What is He now? Our equal?

Exactly. It's not up to us to decide what to call God. He has revealed himself in Scripture and so that is how he should be addressed.

 

[redleghunter]

They pray to the mother goddess, Sophia, etc. etc. This one pastor of theirs that had a 'communion' where they had raisin cakes to the "Queen of Heaven." Which one this was, I forget, but I believe that it was the one who has a ton of tattoos and she swears during sermons.

The sons gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven, and they pour out drink offerings to other gods so that they provoke me to anger. (Jeremiah 7:18)

 

[jovanovic]

I dont see the problem.

 

[Vicomte13]

So I'd be curious if a Roman Catholic could tell me what's going on.

Sure. There are two things that overlap. One is the desire on the part of feminists in wider society in the world to eliminate sexist language.

The second is the desire of the Church to be correct in its words.

People who are ate up with politics will whinge that the Church is "giving in" to...whatever. Other churches do that. The Catholic Church operates differently for reasons of structure.

So, when the Bible was retranslated, the wording of pronouns was looked at. Where the Hebrew or Greek words are not forcibly masculine or feminine, or where the people referred to are referred to collectively, the traditional linquistic convention of translating ambiguity with the male pronoun is discarded, and the inclusive pronoun is used. "They", instead of "he", "us" instead of "us men", where what is intended is humans, not males.

The Father, Jesus, the Lord - these are "He".

The same convention applies in the liturgy and other materials.

For example, the prayer, the Nicene Creed, has a section that is traditionally rendered as "for us men and for our salvation, he came down from Heaven". Today, this can also be said "for us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven".

Is there a difference here? Theologically, none. "Us men" in the original formulation clearly, unambiguously, and certainly includes women. It means "us humans". But saying "humans" is just weird, and unneccessary "us" says the same thing as "us men". If we insist upon "Us men", why are we doing it? Either stubborn traditionmongering, which the Church is trying to get away from, or a stubborn chauvinism, which is not theologically correct. We can say "Us men" for traditional reasons, or to make a statement that it's fine - and that's ok. But if we want to make a theological point that there is a difference, then the authority of the Church is staring us down and saying "No, you are wrong - this language does not mean that men are superior to women in this prayer. And there is no THEOLOGICAL issue here. You are taking an issue of politics and comfortable language and trying to make it a theological issue, but you have no authority to do that, and you are wrong."

Another example. the Christmas Carol: Hark the Herald Angels Sing, has a verse that says: "Born to raise the sons of earth, born to give them second birth". The new hymnal version reads, instead "Born to raise us from the earth, born to give us second birth".

From the perspective of accuracy, the new words are correct. The former language appears to be limitative to men. Of course it wasn't INTENDED to be, but in an earlier age women were effaced and did not take offense. Today, some do, and many note the issue. There is no reason for the Church to take a stand in favor of some traditional words of a Christmas carol. The new lyrics are more theologically correct. Of course, if we want to, we can still sing the old words. It's not WRONG to sing the old words, but it IS wrong to stubbornly insist on the old words in preference to the new words, because when the old words which were casually and unintentionally male, from a time when that didn't matter, are defended on some sort of false theological ground, that it's IMPORTANT, for some reason, to insist on the masculine forms when they do not, in fact, have theological meaning - well, that INSISTENCE on the male where it is neither necessary nor implied, DOES have theological meaning - and that theology is bad. The old habit was just that, a habit, and not offensive, in its time. But where it gives unnecessary offense, to insist upon it today for theological reasons when none exist and the real motivation is political and stubbornness - then it's important for theological reasons, NOT to let that spirit prevail.

Traditional masculine language is not a problem in itself. INSISTING on it when it is not necessary IS a problem: it's bad theology and forces a theological inaccuracy.

Naturally, this approach will not be understood by or acceptable to non-Catholics for whom male chauvinism is intended by God. Nor the lack of political motivation will suffice for the politically motivated.

The Catholic Church does what it does for reasons that really don't have very much to do with American politics and sensitivities. America is just one of many Catholic countries, and not a particularly influential one in the Church either. Brazilians and Mexicans are not butthurt about these linguistic matters - the church is seeking accuracy, not appeasing political spirits. Where it matters, in America, this is visible and becomes part of the American political zeitgeist, but the Church doesn't have American politics in mind when it does these things.

In short, whatever your hobbyhorse is, what the Catholics are doing will disappoint you. We're not doing it for any of the reasons you think, we're not doing it the way you think we are, and what comes out of the Catholic process is more theologically accurate.

The Swedes, by contrast, are just collapsing in the face of politics and have ceased to believe the religion.
Catholics haven't changed any beliefs. They have cleaned up language to make the truth more accurate to the faith and to the originals.

 

[Willing-heart]

God is Spirit, and being human we would never fully comprehend what that means at least on this side of heaven. I think it’s dangerous to try and do away with what is revealed to us by the very Word of God, the Bible. Considering God came to earth in the form a male human being, I think it would only make sense to refer to God in the masculine sense, and also Jesus thought us to call him our Heavenly Father (and not mother) when addressing Him in prayer. I’m convinced the reason we should address God as He is to do with order. This seems to me like compromise on biblical truth.

 

[Vicomte13]

Um. God is not 'physically' anything. So not 'physically' male or female. Except the eternal Son of the Father is incarnated as a physical male.

Now in Catholic theology the Father is male, the Son is male, and the Holy Spirit is male. But God is notale or female when considered as a whole. Based on that the Swedish State religion would be wrong to stop referring to the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as male. Also wrong not to refer to God as Lord, either as Father or Son or Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, in the Hebrew Bible, YHWH is male, the Elohiym (a plural) takes the male singular pronoun (a convention), but Spirit is a female word. So the Holy Spirit and the Glory of God (the Shekinah) are feminine and take the feminine pronoun.

In Greek, spirit is a neuter word.

In Latin, spirit is a masculine word, as it is in the Romance language.

So the gender of the spirit, and the spirit's pronouns change based on the language.

Since the Vulgate is the authoritative Catholic text, in Catholicism it is appropriate for the Holy Spirit to be a He. However, for those religions that treat the Hebrew Text as THE inspired word of God, and the Greek for the New Testament, they err theologically in calling the Holy Spirit a "He". A truly Bible-based religion would have to call the Spirit a she in the Old Testament, and an "it" in the New, because that is what Scripture says in Hebrew and Greek.

Also, all of the Old Testament quotes about the "house of" or "tent of" some patriarch, are said to be "his tent", but the pronoun in Hebrew is always "her" tent. And in Bedouin culture TO THIS DAY, the tent belongs to the wife NOT to the husband. In the event of a divorce, HE must leave HER tent - the tent is hers, not his, and always stays hers.

The "his tent" of the KJV is a linguistically incorrect translation that is designed to reflect English property law, but reverses the actual situation of Abraham, etc. It was not his tent. It was Sarah's tent.

 

[Vicomte13]

God is Spirit, and being human we would never fully comprehend what that means at least on this side of heaven. I think it’s dangerous to try and do away with what is revealed to us by the very Word of God, the Bible. Considering God came to earth in the form a male human being, I think it would only make sense to refer to God in the masculine sense, and also Jesus thought us to call him our Heavenly Father (and not mother) when addressing Him in prayer. I’m convinced the reason we should address God as He is to do with order. This seems to me like compromise on biblical truth.

It's not that simple:
Genesis: IN God's image he made them, male and female he made them.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It should not make much difference one way or the other, as long as we love God and keep His commandments.

If you love God and keep His commandments - you will call Him your Father.

 

[Basil the Great]

Interestingly, in the Hebrew Bible, YHWH is male, the Elohiym (a plural) takes the male singular pronoun (a convention), but Spirit is a female word. So the Holy Spirit and the Glory of God (the Shekinah) are feminine and take the feminine pronoun.

In Greek, spirit is a neuter word.

In Latin, spirit is a masculine word, as it is in the Romance language.

So the gender of the spirit, and the spirit's pronouns change based on the language.

Since the Vulgate is the authoritative Catholic text, in Catholicism it is appropriate for the Holy Spirit to be a He. However, for those religions that treat the Hebrew Text as THE inspired word of God, and the Greek for the New Testament, they err theologically in calling the Holy Spirit a "He". A truly Bible-based religion would have to call the Spirit a she in the Old Testament, and an "it" in the New, because that is what Scripture says in Hebrew and Greek.

Also, all of the Old Testament quotes about the "house of" or "tent of" some patriarch, are said to be "his tent", but the pronoun in Hebrew is always "her" tent. And in Bedouin culture TO THIS DAY, the tent belongs to the wife NOT to the husband. In the event of a divorce, HE must leave HER tent - the tent is hers, not his, and always stays hers.

The "his tent" of the KJV is a linguistically incorrect translation that is designed to reflect English property law, but reverses the actual situation of Abraham, etc. It was not his tent. It was Sarah's tent.

Most interesting, indeed! I never knew the Bedouin tradition of tent property.

 

[salt-n-light]

Church of Sweden to stop referring to God as 'he' or 'Lord'


I mean, I don't believe God is necessarily physically male or female, but this seems like a bit much. What are your thoughts?

God is a He. I don't know why its such a problem to accept that.

 

[redleghunter]

They pray to the mother goddess, Sophia, etc. etc. This one pastor of theirs that had a 'communion' where they had raisin cakes to the "Queen of Heaven." Which one this was, I forget, but I believe that it was the one who has a ton of tattoos and she swears during sermons.

It's an official cult as well:

"Order of Christ Sophia has become a dangerous and destructive organization" - Cult News