The Archbishop of York says that the use of the word "Father" in the Lord's Prayer might be "problematic." Let's recall that the person who first taught anyone to pray this prayer was none other than Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus didn't make a mistake. Jesus didn't get the prayer wrong. Does Abp. Cottrell presume to suggest that GOD did something unwise when He gave us the verbiage of the prayer pattern by which He wants us to address Him? A comedian on a GBNews.com "Duel" segment suggested that perhaps the CoE is trying to raise its ESG score for financial advantage since its donations are low and bills must be paid. Tongue in cheek, for sure, yet it makes one wonder and speculate if there's a grain of truth somewhere in the background...
Yeah, I am probably what you would call a feminist (in some ways) but even I am smart enough to see that if Jesus chose to call God 'Our Father' then there is nothing wrong with doing that ourselves. It isn't a statement about God's gender or sexuality since He isn't male or female. It is an expression of trust and love and filial obedience to the creator of everything. To make an issue about God's so called gender is just creepy to me. I will be continuing to pray just as Jesus did and as he instructed us to do. Our Father . . . Some people have just lost the plot!
For those who have not actually read what was said but only what was reported in some of the more disreputable British press, the 'problematic'-ness was specifically NOT about debating the gender of God the Almighty, (We all know God is fully a 'Trinity in Unity' and therefore not, as such, masculine). It was about concern for individuals who through earthly abusive relationships may have an irrevocably NEGATIVE attitude to fathers, due to their own bad experiences. But it's not a fault of the Lord's Prayer that they have developed such a distorted view of fatherhood. It is a result of their father's sin that they have fallen victim to. Even so. It would be my opinion that it would be utter foolishness to imagine that changing the wording of the Lord's Prayer would be any practical or theoretical help whatever, to someone whose opinion of fathers generally has degenerated to the degree that even the use of the word 'Father' has become, for them, a matter causing offence or distress. Long sessions of counselling would be in order for the individual, not futile semantic gestures by a church that has been saying 'Our Father', with sensible notions, and many saintly examples of what a father should be, for nearly 2000 years. .
I don't suppose he lobbied for changing it at all though, did he? Even the 10 commandments are problematic in some respects, if you analyse them deeply enough. If they were perfectly adequate they would be ALL the laws ever needed to have been given. As for the Lord's Prayer, there obviously wasn't any better way that Jesus could have said it than he did and the version we use isn't from The Bible anyway. Some folks in nhere would consider that a bigger problem than using the word 'Father', when addressing God. Actually : - g3962. πατήρ patēr; apparently a primary word; a “father” (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): — father, parent. AV (419) - Father 268, father 150; generator or male ancestor either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents. The Greek word has wider meanings than the English word 'Father', which more specifically implies male gender parenthood. .
Well, it might be partly so that father issues are the problem, but I actually love the words 'Our Father' just because I didn't have a loving father figure. It takes all kinds. I didn't have a good relationship with my father at all and in calling God, Our Father, I feel I am finally getting a father figure who is loving and just and not an alcoholic! LOL Sure, some father issues need to be resolved in therapy before God can be called Father, but for some of us, it's just nice to feel that there is a loving father figure who cares about us. I had a saint for a mother, but a most distant and scary father, so finding a father who loves me even more completely than my mother did is just perfect. I now have two wonderful parents - both in Heaven!
Not that I know of. And, it remains a standard part of Lutheran liturgy, daily prayer, catechesis, etc.
God is spirit (John 4:24) and spirit does not have flesh and blood (Luke 24:39). So since things like gender and sex are socio-biological characteristics associated with physical bodies, and God is not a biological being; God is neither male nor female. Clearly, then, Jesus was using a word-picture to express God's authority and role as provider and protector to "His" children, which was very well understood in the highly patriarchal world of Palestine two millennia ago. Removed from that context, I see no need to be sticklers over the form when the meaning may expressed in a, well, more meaningful way in a world that is thankfully not so worshipful of masculine tropes. By adhering to the false idea that God is a man, or at least always describing God in masculine terms we run the risk of alienating half the population and giving the false and misogynistic idea that one sex/gender is more godlike than the other. That is very problematic from where I sit. There is neither male nor female in Christ after all (Galatians 3:28). I really don't see where anything is lost from the Gospel message by depicting God more inclusively as "parent" or even "mother" and perhaps much could be gained from a evangelistic perspective, given the current culture we live in, so long as we preserve Jesus' meaning, showing God as source and sovereign.
You are reminding me of Article 1 which says | I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Thankfully not, yet we, as humanity, have made many including making a mangled mess of what we understand fatherhood to be. We have become gender obsessed to the point where we want to make God just like us, rather than the profound truth that we have been made like God, (Psalm 8). As a guardian of the faith, I think ArchBishop Cottrell is defending the truth of the Gospel and calling us to grow in the depth of our understanding of the nature of God. There are plenty of examples of fatherhood in contemporary culture that simply does not help our understanding of the Divine.
First I don’t begrudge when others don’t believe the Anglican faith and all of its tenants are not for them. Some need to make that spiritual journey just to clear things up. The door is always open should you decide to come back. But allow me take a minute to take a deep dive on why this matters. Move this…change that….heck rewrite a couple of chapters in the Bible. Just blurr the distinctions enough and no one will know what you have. Then you have nothing. Zip. Nadia. And before it’s brought up, yes, I don’t understand. At all. Yes, I am sympathetic to those who deal with a world that is far less than kind to them. But here is an idea: show the hurting there is something else out there that is better than this temporal existence and it’s a Father who loves you deeply: today, tomorrow and forever. But that message needs to be a constant to remain legitimate; to remain powerful. Indeed it would be best if I could get a direct connection to Jesus Christ himself - no Bishops, no Councils, no Saints, no disciples, no apostles. Just Jesus talking directly to me. Then HE can tell me what HE and the FATHER think are most important. But that didn’t happen and it’s unlikely that will change until I get to Heaven. So until then don’t tamper with the message. I’ve been to marriage services where herbs were burned in turtle shells; Where a very audible voice says “she” throughout the Nicene Creed and eventually heard a sermon delivered where the priest said you don’t have to believe in God to go to Heaven. In each incident I was completely disgusted so until then I will subscribe to orthodoxy and continue to pray for the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. PS— I don’t expect to changes minds in one internet post. That’s a fool’s errand but I did feel to make my testimony. Furthermore I would probably have been one of those who rose up when Mass was recited in English instead of Latin or translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek. So yes there are gapping holes in my reasoning but at least my premise remains the same….
I think the Church of England is in no greater need of prayer than any other denomination that you could name. However we, in the Church of England regularly pray for the universal church at intercessions each Sunday and I guess we shall continue to do so. .
Maybe one of the problems is not in the gender issue, but in the 'word meaning' issue. What I am saying is that the words Father and Mother might be the problem in this day and age because views of our parents has changed from that of the father always being the provider and authority to a time when mothers can now assume this role and fathers can assume that of nurturer and caregiver. I think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, but I do see how some people can have problems with particular words - they might just trigger things for them. In that case, perhaps instead of changing the words of the prayer, the church could just accept that some people are going to have problems with the word father, and suggest they use whatever word they want until they feel more comfortable. In the meantime, the rest of us can just keep using father. that way we don't have to make major changes just because some people have word phobias. that probably comes across as snarky, but I just mean to ask, has anyone does a count of exactly how many people find the word father offensive in the 'Our Father'. A few? A lot? A majority? Just wondering. But maybe I am not being sensitive enough because it doesn't bother me. I don't know anymore.
God's people have been referring to God our Creator in masculine terms for thousands of years. But people today are so much wiser and more enlightened than those primitive cretins. After all, when they asked Jesus to teach them how to pray, I suppose Jesus really replied, "Since 'Father' is just a masculine trope, say, 'Our Parent'," but those patriarchal bigots never recorded those words in the Gospels, did they! When Jesus returns, no doubt some people will be expecting "her" to be wearing a dress. With lots of lace and sequins. Seriously, does anyone read the Bible any more? What did God say? Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: (Hebrew third person masculine singular) ה֔וּא before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Isa 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Isa 43:26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified. Before the first day was created, God was he. Declare thou that the LORD God is He!
I think Annie is right. The Great Eastern was a great ship and she did many trips around the globe. Note the "she". Of course the ship was no more female than male and some people might want to refer to the ship as "He". It may be as correct as "she" but it just doesn't sound right. In fact mods on shipping forums may even object to this term being used. Some people here (NZ) still refer to England as the Mother land, Father land suggests a country slightly to its east. I don't get too hung up on the "our father" thing.
The Jews and the Muslims know that the Creator identifies Himself as masculine. If this new way of thinking succeeds in worming its way throughout the entire church, the church will be a laughingstock among the Muslims and Jews. (As if the Muslims didn't already think that way about the LGBTQXYZ-condoning attitudes of the modernized denominations.)
What the archbishop actually said seemed perfectly reasonable. Attempting to turn it into something sinister has the appearance of culture war fluff in my opinion.
Universal as in One. Holy. Catholic. I, like you, pray that “that we all may be one”. So when our Anglican family splinters from within - for whatever reason - it gets my attention. We in the US are struggling mightily and it too gets an inordinate amount of my attention. I pray frequently for all of us in the Continuing Anglican Movement “that we may all be one” but only within the margins of the richness and teachings of the tradition that the faith has known for hundreds of years. +++
I can accept that it was largely an unfortunate choice of words on his part. Reasonable, yes... though not 'perfectly' so, as subsequent developments attest.
Yes, we have, and in the main, we continue to do so. One of the issues we have is what change means. In the old prayer books, 1549 - 1661/2 we used to pray that Judges would administer justice indifferently. Because the way we use language has changed, we now pray that Judges would administer justice impartially. To preserve the meaning we have had to change the words. That is a change for the preservation of meaning. Things change, and language changes, and recently we have seen language we used as a driver of social change, and done so deliberately and with intent. In Australia, to change the constitution you need a Referendum, and the constitution prescribes that. However, the interpretation of the Constitution is the responsibility of the High Court. Clearly, over time the High Court has ruled in ways that change the Constitution without a referendum. The Northern and Capital Territory now have 2 Senators each, which was an 'interpretation' of the High Court (possibly reading the invisible ink. At the time our Constitution was drawn up the idea of an Australian Citizen was not contemplated and was essentially invented after WWII, yet now the High Court has ruled that a member of Parliament must be an Australian Citizen and solely an Australian Citizen, (possibly more of the same ink for that interpretation). One of the ultimate principles established in referring to God as Father might be understood as the reliability of God rather than the Gender of God per see. This means when you read Genesis 1:26 with the awkward plural, we see that God makes us in his own image Male and Female he created them. There is no doubt that the dominant theme of Scripture and the past 2000 years of Church History predominantly refers to God in the Masculine, however, there are clearly other viewpoints also expressed. The author of Article 1, certainly had a vision of God far bigger than an old man in the sky. Back to the Archbishop of York, is he really asking the question about language, and if we are changing the way we use language generally, and that is not being reflected in the language that the Church uses, are we in fact surreptitiously changing the text by preserving the words, or would we be better to change the words to reserve the meaning. I don't have the answer to this, and it is above my pay grade, however, I do see this as much more of what is at stake here. I recall the Australian Commedian discussing the Gender of God debate a while back, where he concluded 'Of course God is a man, God is a boy's name'. It might have been above his pay grade too.